Hecker HO Co. v. Holland Food Corporation, No. 95.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Writing for the CourtMANTON, L. HAND, and MACK, Circuit
Citation36 F.2d 767
Docket NumberNo. 95.
Decision Date09 December 1929
PartiesHECKER H-O CO., Inc., v. HOLLAND FOOD CORPORATION.

36 F.2d 767 (1929)

HECKER H-O CO., Inc.,
v.
HOLLAND FOOD CORPORATION.

No. 95.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 9, 1929.


Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City (John W. Crandall, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

W. Lee Helms, of New York City, for appellee.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and MACK, Circuit Judges.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant and appellee manufacture cereal products. The appellee manufactures and sells in both domestic and foreign commerce, and, while the appellant manufactures its cereal products in this country, it sells only in foreign commerce. The appellee's mark is "H-O." The appellant uses the mark "HOFOOD." The mark H-O had been used by the appellee and its predecessors since 1887, and the trade-mark was registered on May 13, 1919.

In 1921, the appellant obtained a registered trade-mark for "HOFOOD" as applied to cereal products, and in 1922 filed an application for registration of the same mark for other cereal products. Thereupon the appellee filed proceedings in the United States Patent Office, praying that the appellant's registered mark be canceled, and that the applied-for mark be denied registration, because of the priority of use of substantially the same mark, to wit, "H-O" of the appellee, in connection with the word "food." The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirmed the vacation of the appellant's trade-mark, and it was denied registration. Holland Food Corp. v. H-O Cereal Co., 56 App. D. C. 189, 11 F.(2d) 575.

The appellant purchases cereal products, including rolled oats, semolina flour, and cattle food, from manufacturers in the United States, and packages them in boxes and barrels, and applies to such containers the word "HOFOOD." These are shipped from American ports to foreign countries, including England, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, and Greece.

The injunction granted below directed that the appellant be permanently enjoined from marketing or selling cereal foodstuffs under the name "HOFOOD," and further from affixing the mark "HOFOOD" on containers for cereal foodstuffs, and from otherwise

36 F.2d 768
infringing the trade-mark rights of the appellee in and to the trade mark "H-O." The appellant contends that it cannot be enjoined from the sale of its product bearing the infringing trade-mark in the respective foreign countries referred to. The Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 724, 728) § 16 (15 USCA § 96), provides

"That the registration...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., No. 251
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 1, 1956
    ...competition of every civilized country were identical to those of the forum. In Hecker-H-O Co. v. Holland Food Corporation, 2 Cir., 1929, 36 F.2d 767, distinguished in George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co., supra, the court did not consider the effect of the defendant's having a presumab......
  • Steele v. Bulova Watch Co, No. 38
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1952
    ...Lanham Act.12 George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co., 2 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 536; Hecker H-O Co. v. Holland Food Corp., 2 Cir., 1929, 36 F.2d 767; Vacuum Oil Co. v. Eagle Oil Co., C.C.1907, 154 F. 867, affirmed, C.C.1908, 162 F. 671. Cf. Morris v. Altstedter, 93 Misc. 329, 156 N.Y.S. 1103......
  • American Rice v. Arkansas Rice Growers Co-op., Civ. A. No. G-81-308.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 2, 1982
    ...Cosmetic Co., 142 F.2d 536 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 323 U.S. 756, 65 S.Ct. 90, 89 L.Ed. 606 (1944); Hecker H-O Co. v. Holland Food Corp., 36 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. Defendant has argued that under Luft this Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin Riceland's alleged acts of infringement. In Luft, the d......
  • George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 30, 1942
    ...58 L.Ed. 1046; United Drug Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co., 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 997; Hecker-H-O Co., Inc., v. Holland Food Corporation, 2 Cir., 36 F.2d 767. Recently defendants have adopted the trade-mark "Viz-Zan-De", but they still make use of the trade-mark "Zande", 48 F. Supp. 606 applicatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., No. 251
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 1, 1956
    ...competition of every civilized country were identical to those of the forum. In Hecker-H-O Co. v. Holland Food Corporation, 2 Cir., 1929, 36 F.2d 767, distinguished in George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co., supra, the court did not consider the effect of the defendant's having a presumab......
  • Steele v. Bulova Watch Co, No. 38
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1952
    ...Lanham Act.12 George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co., 2 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 536; Hecker H-O Co. v. Holland Food Corp., 2 Cir., 1929, 36 F.2d 767; Vacuum Oil Co. v. Eagle Oil Co., C.C.1907, 154 F. 867, affirmed, C.C.1908, 162 F. 671. Cf. Morris v. Altstedter, 93 Misc. 329, 156 N.Y.S. 1103......
  • American Rice v. Arkansas Rice Growers Co-op., Civ. A. No. G-81-308.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 2, 1982
    ...Cosmetic Co., 142 F.2d 536 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 323 U.S. 756, 65 S.Ct. 90, 89 L.Ed. 606 (1944); Hecker H-O Co. v. Holland Food Corp., 36 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. Defendant has argued that under Luft this Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin Riceland's alleged acts of infringement. In Luft, the d......
  • George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 30, 1942
    ...58 L.Ed. 1046; United Drug Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co., 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 997; Hecker-H-O Co., Inc., v. Holland Food Corporation, 2 Cir., 36 F.2d 767. Recently defendants have adopted the trade-mark "Viz-Zan-De", but they still make use of the trade-mark "Zande", 48 F. Supp. 606 applicatio......
  • 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