Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. Klibanow, 3346-601.
| Citation | 1 F. Supp. 584 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 3346-601.,3346-601. |
| Parties | ETHYL GASOLINE CORPORATION v. KLIBANOW. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Edward S. Rogers, of Chicago, Ill., Andrews, Streetman, Logue & Mobley and Robert F. Campbell, all of Houston, Tex., and Webster Atwell, of Dallas, Tex., for complainant.
Renfro, Ledbetter & McCombs and William Andress, Jr., all of Dallas, Tex., for respondent.
The Ethyl Gasoline Corporation shows proprietyship and registration in accordance with the Act of congress of February 20, 1905, as amended (15 USCA § 81 et seq.), of the word "Ethyl," when applied to gasoline, and certain other motor articles, such as oils and fuels and carbon removers. These registrations began in 1924 and extended through the years 1925, 1926, 1930, and 1931. It has laboratories and testing stations in New York City, Detroit, Kansas City, Mo., Tulsa, Okl., and Louisiana, that are known as Ethyl Gasoline Corporation laboratories. The name "Ethyl," and the phrase "Ethyl gasoline Corporation," have acquired and now possess a distinct and identifying significance and refer to the complainant's products and motor fuels, with which complainant's anti-knock compound is mixed, and to complainant's business generally.
It is represented that the respondent engaged in business in Dallas, Tex., under the business style "Ethyl Laboratories." That this was a long time after the institution of the complainant's business. That the respondent began to manufacture, sell, and distribute an automobile cleaner and polish, using the name "Ethyl" both on the article and at the place of making. That this was with full knowledge of complainant's name and business, and was for the purpose of taking advantage of the complainant's reputation and good will.
The complainant complained that such use of the word "Ethyl" on the product and place of production was calculated to deceive the public and to damage the complainant.
The respondent claimed that what he was making and selling was not of substantially the same descriptive properties as the products handled by the complainant. That the word "Ethyl" was not an arbitrary word, and did not refer exclusively to the complainant's product and business. Shuptrine Co. v. Eucaline Medicine Co. (D. C.) 40 F.(2d) 303. It was also contended that there was no infringement, and no deception of the trade or public, and no unfair competition.
The testimony is voluminous. Without going into tiresome details, the court is of the opinion that the use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co.
...K. Fairbanks Co., 50 App. D. C. 250, 270 F. 686; B. V. D. Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 16 Trade Mark Rep. 423; Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. Klibanow (D. C.) 1 F. Supp. 584; Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. Jay-Craver, Inc. (D. C.) 4 F. Supp. 264; Selchow v. Baker, 93 N. Y. 59, 45 Am. Rep. 16......
-
Plough, Inc. v. Intercity Oil Co.
...and other distillates of petroleum, and it has been properly held that they are all in the same descriptive class. Ethyl Gasoline Corp v. Klibanow, D. C., 1 F.Supp. 584. We conclude that the goods of the respective parties are of substantially the same descriptive properties and that the pl......
-
Ivan's Tire Service Store, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...crowns of victory as it may, legitimately. This fight must be made fairly, it must be made with one's own weapon. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. Klibanow, 1 F.Supp. 584 (D.C.Tex.1932). The term competition immediately calls to mind a struggle between people. It has been recognized by the legislati......
-
Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. Jay-Craver
...to challenge their right to employ the names adopted. 1. Judge Atwell of the Northern District of Texas, in Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. Klibanow (D. C.) 1 F. Supp. 584, had before him a similar question. In that case the defendant was doing business under the name and style of "Ethyl Labo......