AMERICAN S. RAZOR CORP. v. INTERNATIONAL S. RAZOR CORP.
| Decision Date | 04 September 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 3945.,3945. |
| Citation | 34 F.2d 445 |
| Parties | AMERICAN SAFETY RAZOR CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL SAFETY RAZOR CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Milton Dammann, of New York City (Charles Evans Hughes, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, of New York City (Martin A. Schenck and Charles E. Hotchkiss, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and THOMSON, District Judge.
The plaintiff is a Virginia corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of razors and blades and kindred articles, and is the successor in business to three corporations, the former owners of the trade names and marks, being "Gem," "Ever Ready," and "Star," which were acquired by plaintiff with the good will of the business in 1919. The defendants are selling safety blades of their own make, in cartons and packages bearing the plaintiff's names and displayed on its advertising matter.
A preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from the use of their cartons and advertising matter was granted. In like manner, a preliminary injunction was granted against the Woolworth Company in the Southern District of New York; the court, in its order, setting forth certain circulars and advertising matter, which the court held could be used by the Woolworth Company in the sale of defendant's blades pending final hearing. On the trial of the case here, the bill was dismissed. There could be no question, and the court held that the plaintiff has the right to use all of its trade-marks on safety razors and blades, and to mark and advertise its products through its selling corporations as they were used before purchase by the plaintiff. But the court seemed to conclude that the plaintiff was selling the same blade at varying prices under a simulating competition in advertising; that it worked a fraud on the public, and, coming into a court of equity with unclean hands, that the bill should be dismissed. This does not appear to have been an issue, either raised or suggested on the trial, and therefore the testimony bearing on the question is exceptionally meagre. But the record does show differences in the cost of plaintiff's blades, which would appear to justify a difference in selling price.
The three products of the plaintiff are sold by separate corporations, and in the sale of these products each selling agency separately advertises its frames...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nat. Football League v. Governor of State of Del.
...cited as McCarthy). 11 American Safety Razor Corp. v. International Safety Razor Corp., 26 F.2d 108, rev'd on other grounds, 34 F.2d 445 (3rd Cir. 1929); McCarthy § 12 Saxony Products, Inc. v. Guerlain, Inc., 513 F.2d 716 (9th Cir. 1975); McCarthy § 25:14. 13 Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125......
-
Plough, Inc. v. Intercity Oil Co.
...and it cannot be controlling in the face of judicial recognition of the term as a valid trade mark (American Safety Razor Corp. v. International Safety Razor Corp., 3 Cir., 34 F.2d 445). We hold that the term "Ever Ready" is not descriptive within the meaning of the Act and that the plainti......
-
Polyglycoat Corp. v. Environmental Chemicals, Inc.
...Cir. 1969); American Safety Razor Corp. v. International Safety Razor Corp., 26 F.2d 108 (D.N.J. 1928), reversed on other grounds, 34 F.2d 445 (3rd Cir. 1929). See also Saxony Products, Inc. v. Guerlain Inc., 513 F.2d 716, 722 (9th Cir. 1975); National Football League v. Governor of State o......
-
Extrin Foods v. Leighton
...Smiling Irishman v. McDonald, 183 Misc. 985; World's Dispensary Medical Assn. v. Pierce, 203 N.Y. 419, and American Safety Razor Corp. v. International Safety Razor Corp., 34 F.2d 445.) Moreover, were the facts alleged by the affirmative defense established, this court would be inclined to ......