Home/E.D. Kentucky/Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. Colker

Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. Colker

245 F. 907, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1221
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky
DecidedApril 13, 1914
DocketNo. 2892
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 F. 907 (Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. Colker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. Colker, 245 F. 907, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1221 (E.D. Ky. 1914).

Opinion

COCHRAN, District Judge.

[1,2] The question in this case is whether defendant has put on the market his goods for the complainant’s. A man has a right to sell his own product to anybody that wants to buy it; but he has no right to put forth his goods as another’s goods, so as to get the advantage of a man’s trade. This (Figure 1) is the package of the complainant, the Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Company. On the hearing of the motion for temporary injunction, I held that this package (Figure 2) was an infringement of that represented in Figure 1, because the ordinary purchaser was likely to be deceived, when calling for Wrigley’s goods, or “Spearmint” goods, into thinking, when he got the package represented in Figure 2, that he was getting a package of Wrigley’s goods. And why is he deceived? Why is that calculated to deceive him? It is because the general appearance is the same. A man in the habit of buying Wrigley’s goods, and paying a nickel a package for it, will go into some place where he is not in the habit of getting it and call for Wrigley’s, and if the package represented in Figure 2 is handed him, he will think that-is it, unless he actually reads the words on it; and he will not always, or is not likely, to read it closely, and he will not detect the difference until he has actually used it, and noticed that there is a difference in the taste of the two — if there is.

Since the temporary injunction was granted, the defendant has put another article on the market. What is the difference between the article as represented in Figure 2 and the new article in general appearance? The ordinary purchaser would not see any difference at all. The only difference is that here on the first product he has “Aids Digestion” on the left, whereas on the new product he has “Sweetens the Breath.” While on the right of the original package he has “Flavor* Everlasting,” on the right of the new product he has “Assists Digestion.” Unless a person would recall these things, he would not know they were not the same. And then there are other markings here; but the dress is substantially the same. The ordinary purchaser [909]*909would not know the difference between them; he would not know the difference between that and this (indicating the two products), unless he read closely.

[0]*0

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

Related

Hi-Land Dairyman's Ass'n v. Cloverleaf Dairy
151 P.2d 710 (Utah Supreme Court, 1944)
Helmet Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co.
245 F. 824 (Sixth Circuit, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 F. 907, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wm-wrigley-jr-co-v-colker-kyed-1914.