Gerson v. Iowa Pearl Button Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1918 |
| Parties | GERSON v. IOWA PEARL BUTTON CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Joseph A. Arnold, of New York City, opposed.
The application is for a preliminary injunction to restrain defendant from using the words 'Iowa Pearl Button Company' within the state of New York, or, in any event within the county of New York.
Plaintiff has used the name since December 2, 1913, having filed a certificate in the office of the New York county clerk in accordance with the statute permitting individuals, as distinguished from corporations, to use the designation of 'Company' after compliance with statutory requirements and procedure.
Defendant corporation was organized under the laws of Iowa in 1916, its place of business being in Muscatine, in that state, and, on January 5, 1917, it obtained the usual certificate of authority to do business in the state of New York.
Bishop the president of defendant, states that after a careful investigation, to ascertain whether the name 'Iowa Pearl Button Company' had been used in the United States, he was unable to find that the name was in use. There is no reason to doubt this statement, as it is quite likely that such a search would be confined to inquiry of state secretaries or like state officials, rather than of innumerable county clerks or similar officials. According to Bishop, neither he nor any one else connected with defendant knew of the existence of Gerson's trade-name.
Gerson is a dealer, and trades, not only in Iowa pearl buttons, but also in other kinds of buttons. Defendant is a large manufacturer of 'Iowa,' or fresh-water pearl buttons. Nothing in the way of wrongdoing, nor deception, nor unfair trade methods, is shown against defendant. Plaintiff's sole reliance is on the liability to deception and confusion which is likely to result from the use by defendant of a name substantially identical with that of plaintiff's trade-name.
It is unnecessary to analyze at length the cases which deal with this frequently litigated subject, for the motion may be disposed of on the authority of Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S 598, 9 Sup.Ct. 166, 32 L.Ed. 535.
It seems-- rather interestingly-- that 'Iowa pearl button' is a well-known product, which has grown to have a name as generic as 'cotton' or 'grain,' to use the illustration of the Goodyear Case, supra. In other words, 'Iowa pearl button' means a button made out of fresh-water shells. According to defendant, about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyoming Nat. Bank of Casper v. Security Bank & Trust Co.
...companies went under the names of "California Sportswear Company" and "California Sportswear, Inc."); Gerson v. Iowa Pearl Button Co., U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. 1918, 254 F. 363 ("Iowa"). Subject to the rule of secondary meaning, the general rule is also that a generic word in common use, when use......
- Sullivan v. Nitrate Producers' S.S. Co.