Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v. Lerman
107 F. Supp. 835, 95 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 310, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3715
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided July 14, 1951·No. Civ. A. 4378-49·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Judgment for plaintiff.
Counterclaim dismissed.
.Defendants have established no common law mark, since that used by them has acquired no secondary meaning and is purely descriptive. I doubt further that it could acquire a secondary meaning in the sense that term has been defined by the Supreme Court. Apart from that, the defendants have failed it would seem to actively merchandise the product for at least the last three years.
Counsel will prepare proper order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v. Lerman, 107 F. Supp. 835, 95 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 310, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3715 (D.D.C. 1951).
107 F. Supp. 835 (Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v. Lerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co.
121 F. Supp. 785 (D. Nebraska, 1954)