Alfred Schneier Co. v. Bramson
| Decision Date | 22 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 7894.,7894. |
| Citation | 16 F. Supp. 493 |
| Parties | ALFRED SCHNEIER CO., Inc., v. BRAMSON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
H. C. Bierman, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Isadore Glauberman, of New York City, for defendant.
This is an action for unfair competition by defendant and for the infringement of plaintiff's registered trade-mark No. 293,514, dated April 26, 1932.
Plaintiff and its predecessor has been since 1887, and now is, engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing siphons for use in dispensing carbonated beverages. Such siphons have been, and are, in common use and in wide distribution. These siphons consist essentially of a siphon bottle having fitted to the neck thereof a metallic siphon head which includes a valve and other necessary elements whereby to control the flow of liquids through said siphon head. Plaintiff's business is the largest business of its kind in the United States. Up to the year 1930 the siphon heads of various manufacturers were not easily distinguishable. It was impossible for the ordinary user to distinguish the products of the manufacturers.
On or about June 17, 1930, plaintiff adopted a distinguishing mark on siphon heads manufactured by plaintiff, and plaintiff used in interstate commerce in the United States and elsewhere such distinguishing mark, and has continuously used the same. Said mark consists in a panel impressed into the siphon head at one side thereof, the panel being generally of rectangular shape and being longer than it is high and usually is stippled in order to make the same more visible at a glance. Plaintiff in the manufacture of siphon heads stamps the name of its customer on the rectangular panel.
After the adoption of plaintiff's trademark, and prior to its infringement by the defendant Sam Bramson, doing business as Metropolitan Siphon Supply Company, plaintiff filed an application for registration of its trade-mark in the United States Patent Office on December 5, 1930, serial No. 308,644. Plaintiff was the originator and sole proprietor of the trade-mark sought to be protected in said application, which trade-mark was unknown and had not been used by others in this country at the time of the origin and adoption thereof by plaintiff. Said trade-mark has been continuously used by the plaintiff since its adoption and has not been abandoned. Plaintiff having complied with the statutes, rules, and regulations, such proceedings were had in the United States Patent Office that on April 26, 1932, registration No. 293,514 was duly granted to the plaintiff for said trade-mark. That said trade-mark reads as follows:
There is no question as to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Distilling Co. v. Bellows & Co.
...Church & Dwight Co., 8 Cir, 182 F. 24, 29. Also see General Shoe Corporation v. Rosen, 4 Cir., 111 F.2d 95, 99; Alfred Schneider Co., Inc. v. Bramson, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 493, 494; International Cheese Co. v. Phenix Cheese Co., 118 App.Div. 499, 103 N.Y.S. 362. Appellant cites Southern Calif. ......
-
Dredgers v. Baard, 11-CV-5985 (PKC)
...provides prima facie evidence of the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark in commerce"); Alfred Schneier Co. v. Bramson, 16 F. Supp. 493, 494 (E.D.N.Y. 1936) ("The fact that the Patent Office permitted the registration of the trade-mark gives a very definite presumption both of the ......
-
Weiner v. National Tinsel Mfg. Co.
...Detroit Motor Appliance Co. v. Burke, D.C., 4 F.2d 118, Feil v. American Serum Co., 8 Cir., 16 F.2d 88, Alfred Schneier Co., Inc. v. Sam Bramson, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 493. Certainly this presumption, strengthened by an almost universal acquiescence by the public for twenty-five years in the use......
-
Marshall Mfg. Co. v. Verhalen
...thereof, and creates an assumption of validity. DePont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co., 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 75; Alfred Schneier Co. v. Bramson, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 493; Hygienic Products Co. v. Coe, 66 App.D.C. 98, 85 F.2d 264. Such presumption, however, may be, and we think in this case was,......