Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Davis

Decision Date05 November 1885
Citation26 F. 293
PartiesROYAL BAKING POWDER CO. v. DAVIS and others.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Isaac Marston, for plaintiff.

John D. Conely, for defendant.

BROWN, J.

This is a bill in equity for the infringement of plaintiff's trade-mark, which consists of the words 'Royal Baking Powder,' used in connection with labels of a particular design and color, applied to the cans containing the article manufactured by plaintiff.

The defendants make use of cans of precisely the same size and shape, to which are affixed labels of the same colors and general design as those of the plaintiff, with the words 'Coral Baking Powder' thereon. The answer avers 'that the shape and size of the can described in the bill is a common mercantile article in the market, and is made by different manufacturers for holding baking powders;' that 'the colors on the labels are also in common use by baking powder in the bill, in combination with each other, or with any other matter or thing, constitute a trade-mark. The labels used by defendants' firm are similar to those used by the plaintiff in their color, and to the extent that one-half of the label has a red ground with white letters and the other half a yellow ground with black letters. The corner ornamentation differ. The word 'Royal' on plaintiff's red ground is in good-sized letters. The word 'Coral' on defendants' is in larger letters. In the center of plaintiff's red ground the ornamentation is a picture of a Royal baking powder can in a circle. In the center of defendants' red ground is a circle containing therein the words 'Trade-mark,' with a large picture below of a piece of coral.

I do not think the use of the words 'Coral Baking Powder' is in itself an infringement of plaintiff's trade-mark,-- 'The Royal Baking Powder.' The difficulty is with the similarity of the labels upon which the words are used. The general arrangement of the words being the same, the devices upon the cans being very much alike, and the labels of the same color and general appearance, I think purchasers might be very easily deceived into buying the one for the other. The injunction, then, will not extend to the use of the words 'Coral Baking Powder,' but to their use in connection with cans and labels of the same general appearance as those of the plaintiff.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Time, Inc. v. Life Television Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • July 28, 1954
    ...not stop use of "Frigid" alone because there was no evidence that its use alone had resulted in confusion. And in Royal Baking Powder v. Davis, C.C.E.D.Mich. 1885, 26 F. 293, since the coloring and design of defendant's label were the bases for finding confusion, plaintiff could enjoin only......
  • Trask Fish Co. v. Wooster
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 3, 1888
    ...1 F. 24; Leclanche Battery Co. v. Western Electric Co., 23 F. 276; , Dixon Crucible Co. v. Guggenheim, 2 Brewster 321; Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Davis, 26 F. 293. the concurrence of all the judges, the judgment is affirmed. ...
  • Cleveland Stone Co. v. Wallace
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • May 2, 1892
    ...Co. v. Tennessee Manuf'g Co., 138 U.S. 537, 11 S.Ct. 402; Burton v. Stratton, 12 F. 696, White Lead Co. v. Cary, 25 F. 125; Baking Powder Co. v. Davis, 26 F. 293; Nail Co. v. Bennett, 43 F. 800; Societe v. Western Distillery Co., 43 F. 416; Avery v. Meikle, 81 Ky. 73; Pierce v. Guittard, 68......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT