Warner Bros. Co. v. Wiener

Second Circuit

Warner Bros. Co. v. Wiener

218 F. 635, 134 C.C.A. 393, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1588

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 10, 1914

DocketNo. 271

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 F. 635 (Warner Bros. Co. v. Wiener) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Warner Bros. Co. v. Wiener, 218 F. 635, 134 C.C.A. 393, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1588 (2d Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

Since our decision affirming the order in this case the Supreme Court has handed down an opinion in the case of Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids Manufacturing Co., 233 U. S. 461, 34 Sup. Ct. 648, 58 L. Ed. 1046. A majority of the court understand it to hold that the trade-mark granted in a surname under the fourth proviso of section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905 is in the name itself, irrespective of the way in which it is printed or displayed. The-name in such a case is to be treated as if it were an arbitrary word, and is to be protected, not only against literal, but against colorable,, imitation. So regarded, the word “Wiener,” standing alone, is, in our opinion a colorable imitation of the word “Warner,” and the defendant must be enjoined, although it is his own surname, from using it in the corset business alone, or in any manner amounting to a color-able imitation of the word “Warner.”

Order modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WARD, Circuit Judge.

Since our decision affirming the order in this case the Supreme Court has handed down an opinion in the case of Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids Manufacturing Co., 233 U. S. 461, 34 Sup. Ct. 648, 58 L. Ed. 1046. A majority of the court understand it to hold that the trade-mark granted in a surname under the fourth proviso of section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905 is in the name itself, irrespective of the way in which it is printed or displayed. The-name in such a case is to be treated as if it were an arbitrary word, and is to be protected, not only against literal, but against colorable,, imitation. So regarded, the word “Wiener,” standing alone, is, in our opinion a colorable imitation of the word “Warner,” and the defendant must be enjoined, although it is his own surname, from using it in the corset business alone, or in any manner amounting to a color-able imitation of the word “Warner.”

Order modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. 635, 134 C.C.A. 393, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-bros-co-v-wiener-ca2-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack