Englander v. McKesson-Roeber-Kuebler Co.
Decision Date | 19 June 1936 |
Citation | 185 A. 917 |
Parties | ENGLANDER v. McKESSON-ROEBER-KUEBLER CO. McKESSON & ROBBINS, Inc., v. ENGLANDER. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. To acquire a trade-mark, one must actually use it in his business, and the right arises with the first use.
2. One who does not deal in alcoholic beverages, and has no good will in business of that nature to protect, cannot acquire a trade-mark applied to such beverages.
3. M procured a distiller to make and bottle gin, labeled Silver Crest and bearing the name of S. The distiller, through M's efforts, sold quantities of the gin to S. Held, that M thereby gained no right to the name Silver Crest.
4. A trade-mark cannot be assigned separate from the good will of the business to which it is attached.
5. The trader's right to a trade-mark does not arise when the goods marked with the mark are manufactured for him or when he buys them, but when he puts them on the market.
6. Adoption of a mark and public advertisement of intention to use it create no right. Until the product is actually on the market, no property right in the mark arises.
7. Words or device may be adopted as trade-mark which are not original inventions of him who adopts and uses them.
8. E learned that W intended to market a product marked Silver Crest. He liked the name, adopted it himself, and got his product to market first. Held, E had a legal right to use the name, and he acquired a valid trademark.
9. Two persons can gain the same trademark for noncompetitive articles, provided the second one to use the mark acts in good faith and the buying public is not deceived.
Suit by Jacob Englander, trading as the Federal Products Company, against the McKesson-Roeber-Kuebler Company, and suit by McKesson & Robbins, Inc., against Jacob Englander, trading under the name and style of the Federal Products Company.
Order in accordance with opinion.
Louis B. Englander, of Newark, for Jacob Englander.
John Drewen, of Jersey City, and Percy E. Williamson, Jr. (of Nims & Verdi), of New York City, for McKesson & Robbins, Inc., and McKesson-Roeber-Kuebler Co.
BIGELOW, Vice Chancellor. The right to use the name Silver Crest as a trade-mark for gin and other alcoholic beverages is the object of the litigation. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., and Englander, each claiming to own the mark, seeks to restrain the other from using it.
McKesson and its predecessors had been manufacturers of drugs for many years. Its subsidiary corporations were scattered throughout the country, doing a wholesale business. With the approach of repeal of the prohibition amendment, it organized Spirits Import Company to engage in the liquor business, especially around New York, and it had its wholesale houses prepare to deal in liquor. McKesson arranged with a distiller, Hiram Walker & Co, for a private brand of gin for which the name Silver Crest was chosen. It was tacitly understood that Walker would furnish this brand to none except the McKesson group. McKesson assumed no liability to Walker except to take up unused bottles, etc, at cost, if it should discontinue the brand. Part of the arrangement between them is stated in a letter from Walker to McKesson:
The expression "your purchases" in the letter obviously means purchases by McKesson's subsidiaries, since McKesson itself was not making ready to enter the liquor business, and did not engage in it or deal in Silver Crest gin for several months after the transactions recited below. The subsidiaries bought direct from Walker, and paid Walker out of their own funds. The allowances mentioned in the letter were not deducted from the bills sent them; they paid in full, and Walker remitted the amount of the discounts monthly to McKesson. Be it noted that McKesson received a commission, if that is the proper word, not only on sales of private brands, but on all brands.
On the Silver Crest labels was printed "Distilled and bottled for Spirits Import Company," and at the top of the labels were the initials of that company. There was nothing to indicate any connection between McKesson and Silver Crest.
Prohibition repeal became effective December 6, 1933. On January 27, 1934, the first shipment of Silver Crest was made by Walker, namely, a carload to Spirits Import Company at New York. The next shipment was two days later by Walker to the McKesson subsidiary in Minneapolis. The first resale occurred February 5, 1934, and was made by Spirits Import Company. Since then, the business has continued in large volume, widely advertised.
The general rule is that one to acquire a trade-mark must actually use it in his business and the right arises with the first use. Did McKesson acquire the trademark Silver Crest on the sale and shipment January 27 from Walker to Spirits Import Company? McKesson was not a party to the transaction; its position was that of a broker who had procured a customer for Walker. While the owner of a trademark need not be the manufacturer of the goods on which the mark is used, it seems he cannot have a trade-mark save in connection with his own trade. To borrow the language of easements, there can be no trade-mark in gross, or except as appurtenant to the business of the owner of the mark.
2 Ann.Cas. 216, and cases cited in note. Vice Chancellor Van Fleet said in
Schneider v. Williams, 44 N.J.Eq. 391, 14 A. 812, 814:
In Schmalz v. Wooley, 57 N.J.Eq. 303, 41 A. 939, 941, 43 L.R.A. 86, 73 Am.St.Rep. 637, the Court of Errors and Appeals suggested that it is the actual marketing of the article which should be stressed, and not the person by whom it is marketed. The case related to a union label on hats. Justice Dixon wrote that the workman's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Company
...v. Maloney-Davidson Co., 6 Cir., 86 F.2d 815; Atlas Beverage v. Minneapolis Brewing Co., 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 672; Englander v. McKesson-Roeber-Kuebler, 120 N.J.Eq. 480, 185 A. 917. 16 Appellants cite the following cases asserted to be in square conflict with the decision of the court below: Fo......
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. A & P Trucking Corp., A--35
...any probable injury and thus equitable intervention against the use of a similar trade name would be unwarranted. Englander v. McKesson, 120 N.J.Eq. 480, 185 A. 917 (Ch.1936); Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co., 273 U.S. 629, 47 S.Ct. 481, 71 L.Ed. 810 (1927); Charles Broadway Rouss ......
-
Supreme Wine Co. v. American Distilling Company
...to be in a separate category from distilled alcoholic beverages is supported by several cases. Englander v. McKesson-Roeber-Kuebler Co., 120 N.J.Eq. 480, 185 A. 917 (Ct.Ch.1936) ("I think there is no substantial competition between gin on the one hand, and port, sherry, and cordials on the ......
-
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.
...and malt syrup); Atlas Beverage Co. v. Minneapolis Brewing Co., 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 672 (beer and whiskey); Englander v. McKesson-Roeber-Kuebler Co., 120 N.J.Eq. 480, 185 A. 917 (gin vs. wines and cordials). As stated above, "Black & White" are common words which have been used on many product......