Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, Frary & Clark
| Decision Date | 02 June 1904 |
| Docket Number | 168. |
| Citation | 131 F. 240 |
| Parties | ENTERPRISE MFG. CO. v. LANDERS, FRARY & CLARK. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
E. D Robbins, for appellants.
Charles Howson, for appellee.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.
This is a most aggravated case of unfair trading. Usually in these case the defendants so dress their goods as to present a number of points of difference, on which they rely when charged with intent to deceive; insisting that, although there may be resemblances, the differences are so great as to preclude any idea that they had sought to produce confusion. Here, on the contrary, they have not only conformed their goods to complainant's in size and general shape, which was to be expected, but also in all minor details of structure--every line and curve being reproduced, and superfluous metal put into the driving wheels to produce a strikingly characteristic effect-- while the goods are so dressed with combinations of color, with decorations reproduced or closely simulated, with style of lettering and details of ornamentation, that, except for the fact that on the one mill is found the complainant's name, and on the other the defendants', it would be very difficult to tell them apart. It is elementary law that, when the simulation of well-known and distinctive features is so close, the court will assume that defendants intended the result they have accomplished, and will find an intent to appropriate the trade of their competitor, even though in their instructions to their own selling agents they may caution against oral misrepresentations as to the manufacture of the goods. There is evidence to show that purchasers have been deceived as to the identity of these mills, but, in the case of a Chinese copy, such as defendants offer to the public, such proof is hardly needed.
It is to defendants' credit that, when confronted with the charge of copying, they have not denied it, nor asserted that they were trying to differentiate their own products. On the contrary, they admit that they 'concluded they could profitably manufacture this same line of hardware and sell it in competition with the Enterprise Company,' and accordingly commenced the manufacture thereof, 'using parts of mills sold by the Enterprise Company as patterns wherever it was convenient or profitable to do so,' with the result that they are 'now making and selling coffee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haeger Potteries v. Gilner Potteries
...305 U.S. 653, 59 S.Ct. 246, 83 L.Ed. 422; A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Shemitz, 2 Cir., 1930, 45 F.2d 98, 100; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, Frary & Clark, 2 Cir., 1904, 131 F. 240, 241; Luminous Unit Co. v. R. Williamson & Co., D.C.N.D.Ill., 241 F. 265, 269, affirmed, 7 Cir., 1917, 245 F. Copyin......
-
Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Rogers Imports, Inc.
...said: "The cases of so-called `nonfunctional' unfair competition, starting with the `coffee mill case,' Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, Frary & Clark, 131 Fed. 240, 65 C.C.A. 587, are only instances of the doctrine of `secondary' meaning. All of them presuppose that the appearance of the ar......
-
American Safety Table Company v. Schreiber
...Co. v. Vacheron, 2 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 464, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 832, 76 S.Ct. 67, 100 L.Ed. 743; Enterprise Manufacturing Co. v. Landers, Frary & Clark, 2 Cir., 1904, 131 F. 240; Wesson v. Galef, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1922, 286 F. 621; Avon Periodicals v. Ziff-Davis Pub. Co., supra, Sup.195......
-
Electric Auto-Lite Co. v. P. & D. MFG. CO.
...v. George Frost Co. (C. C. A.) 176 F. 338; Thayer Telkee Corp. v. Davenport-Tayler Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 46 F.(2d) 559; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, etc. (C. C. A.) 131 F. 240; Yale, etc., Co. v. Alder (C. C. A.) 154 F. 37; Barton et al. v. Rex-Oil Co. (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 402, 40 A. L. R. 424......
-
A FRAGILITY THEORY OF TRADEMARK FUNCTIONALITY.
...know what they may safely do."). (43) Enterprise Mfg. Co. of Pa. v. Landers, Frary & Clark, 124 F. 923, 924 (C.C.D. Conn. 1903), aff'd, 131 F. 240 (2d Cir. (44) Globe-Wernicke Co. v. Brown & Besly, 121 F. 90, 91 (7th Cir. 1902). (45) George G. Fox Co. v. Best Baking Co., 95 N.E. 747......