Columbia Mill Co v. Alcorn, No. 115

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJACKSON
Citation14 S.Ct. 151,37 L.Ed. 1144,150 U.S. 460
Docket NumberNo. 115
Decision Date04 December 1893
PartiesCOLUMBIA MILL CO. v. ALCORN et al

150 U.S. 460
14 S.Ct. 151
37 L.Ed. 1144
COLUMBIA MILL CO.

v.

ALCORN et al.

No. 115.
December 4, 1893.

Page 461

P. H. Gunckle, for appellant.

Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the court.

The complainant, a corporation or Minnesota, engaged in the manufacture of flour at Minneapolis, in that state, brought this bill to restrain the defendants from using the word 'Columbia' in a brand placed on flour sold by them. The complainant alleged that it had selected this word as a fanciful and arbitrary name or trade-mark at least five years prior to the filing of the bill, for the use and purpose of identifying a certain quality of flour of its own manufacture. The complainant's brand, printed on sacks, and stenciled on the heads of barrels, was in the form of a circle, in the upper arc of which were the words 'Columbia Mill Co.,' and in the lower arc, 'Minneapolis, Minn.' These words were printed in blue. On a horizonrtal line, and in the middle of the circle, was the

Page 462

alleged trade-mark, 'Columbia,' in large letters, which was printed in red. Below this word, on separate lines, and in smaller letters, were the words 'Roller Process' and 'Patent.' The bill also alleged that the brand of flour on which the trade-mark was affixed obtained an extensive sale, and became generally known throughout the country, but that in the years 1887 and 1888 purchasers and consumers thereof were misled and deceived by the defendants, who put up in similar packages an imitation of the flour manufactured by the complainant, which was thus sold by them under the name, brand, and trade-mark, 'Columbia.' It was further alleged that the flour thus sold, although inferior in quality to the complainant's article, caused a great diminution in the business of the complainant. The bill prayed for a injunction, and an accounting of the profits on all the flour sold by the defendants under the brand of 'Columbia.'

The defendants answered that they carried on in Philadelphia a general business of buying outright, and of selling on commission, flour consigned to them, and that, in accordance with the custom of the trade, they had their own brands put on the sacks and barrels of flour handled by them. They admit that one of the brands so used was in the form of a circle, having the words 'High Grade' in the upper arc, and under those words 'No. 1;' then, on the next line, 'Hard Wheat,' under which, in large letters, was the word 'Columbia,' and below that, in letters of the same size, was the word 'Patent,' and the figures '196' in another line below. On the lower arc of the circle were the words 'Minneapolis, Minn.' The answer stated that the whole of the brand was printed in black ink. The defendants further averred that 'they have never sold any flour not manufactured by the complainant as being the flour of the complainant; that they have not knowingly or actually used, or caused to be used, any brand for flour in imitation of any brand used by the complainant, nor have they ever sold any flour branded in imitation of complainant's flour; that they have never come in competition with complainant's flour, nor has any one ever purchased the respondent's flour, believing it to be of the

Page 463

complainant's manufacture; that they deny any claim on the part of the complainant to any right to the name 'Columbia' as a trade-mark, averring that the same was used by these respondents and other parties long before the said complainant commenced to use it, and that other mills beside the complainant's manufacture and sell flour branded 'Columbia."

Upon the pleadings and proofs, the court below held that the complainant had not established its exclusive right to the use of the word 'Columbia' in a brand for flour, and dismissed the bill. From this decree the present appeal is prosecuted.

We are clearly of opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the court below. The general principles of law applicable to trade-marks, and the conditions under which a party may establish an exclusive right to the use of a name or symbol, are well settled by the decisions of this court in the following cases: Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245; Manufacturing Co. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51; Goodyear India Rubber Glove Manuf'g Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598, 9 Sup. Ct. 166; Corbin v. Gould, 133 U. S. 308, 10 Sup. Ct. 312; Lawrence Manuf'g Co. v. Tennessee Manuf'g Co., 138 U. S. 537, 11 Sup. Ct. 396; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540, 11 Sup. Ct. 625.

These cases...

To continue reading

Request your trial
201 practice notes
  • Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co., 1,474.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 29 Abril 1901
    ...of an article are not capable of monopolization as trade-marks. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall, 311, 321, 20 L.Ed. 581; Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 464, 14 Sup.Ct. 151, 37 L.Ed. 1144; Iron Co. v. Uhler, 75 Pa. 467, 15 Am.Rep. 599; Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U.S. 540, 546, 11 Sup.Ct. 625,......
  • North American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, No. 12041.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 23 Junio 1955
    ...of one additional idea will suffice to show how murky are the waters in which the Board would fish. In Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 1893, 150 U.S. 460, 466, 14 S.Ct. 151, 153, 37 L.Ed. 1144, the Court said: "The appellant was no more entitled to the exclusive use of the word `Columbia' as a......
  • LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co., No. 300
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 12 Noviembre 1946
    ...right of many." Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 324, 80 U.S. 311, 324, 20 L.Ed. 581. See also Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 14 S.Ct. 151, 37 L.Ed. 1144; Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co., 179 U.S. 665, 21 S.Ct. 270, 45 L.Ed. 365; American Wine Co. ......
  • Serra v. US General Services Admin., No. 86 Civ. 9656 (MP).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 31 Agosto 1987
    ...as a reference to, or indication of, its ownership or creation, it cannot be sustained as a valid trademark. Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 463, 14 S.Ct. 151, 152, 37 L.Ed. 1144 D. State Law Claim New York law prohibits the public display of an artwork "in an altered, defaced, 6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
201 cases
  • Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co., 1,474.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 29 Abril 1901
    ...of an article are not capable of monopolization as trade-marks. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall, 311, 321, 20 L.Ed. 581; Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 464, 14 Sup.Ct. 151, 37 L.Ed. 1144; Iron Co. v. Uhler, 75 Pa. 467, 15 Am.Rep. 599; Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U.S. 540, 546, 11 Sup.Ct. 625,......
  • North American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, No. 12041.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 23 Junio 1955
    ...of one additional idea will suffice to show how murky are the waters in which the Board would fish. In Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 1893, 150 U.S. 460, 466, 14 S.Ct. 151, 153, 37 L.Ed. 1144, the Court said: "The appellant was no more entitled to the exclusive use of the word `Columbia'......
  • LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co., No. 300
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 12 Noviembre 1946
    ...many." Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 324, 80 U.S. 311, 324, 20 L.Ed. 581. See also Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 14 S.Ct. 151, 37 L.Ed. 1144; Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co., 179 U.S. 665, 21 S.Ct. 270, 45 L.Ed. 365; American Wine Co. ......
  • Serra v. US General Services Admin., No. 86 Civ. 9656 (MP).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 31 Agosto 1987
    ...as a reference to, or indication of, its ownership or creation, it cannot be sustained as a valid trademark. Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 463, 14 S.Ct. 151, 152, 37 L.Ed. 1144 D. State Law Claim New York law prohibits the public display of an artwork "in an altered, defac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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