John P. Dant Distillery Co. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc.
| Citation | 297 F.2d 935 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 14549.,14549. |
| Parties | JOHN P. DANT DISTILLERY CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCHENLEY DISTILLERS, INC., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John P. DANT, Jr., Third Party Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Milton Handler, New York City, Sidney A. Diamond, New York City, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City, Joseph J. Kaplan, Ben F. Washer, Louisville, Ky., Nichols, Woods, Marx & Ginter, Roy G. Holmes, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellant.
Oldham Clarke, Louisville, Ky., McElwain, Dinning, Clarke & Winstead, Louisville, Ky., on brief, for appellees.
Before SIMONS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and DARR, District Judge.
The appellant, Schenley Distillers, Inc., is successor in title to the trade-mark "J. W. Dant," distiller of Kentucky whiskey from way back in 1836. The appellee, John P. Dant Distillery Co., and the third-party defendant-appellee, John P. Dant, Jr., its president, assert their right to use the trade-mark under which the whiskey of appellee's distillery is marketed and to use its corporate name. John P. Dant, Jr., is a grand-son of J. W. Dant and a nephew of the latter's son, George W. Dant — the family's early Kentucky distillers.
In this action, tried without the intervention of a jury, the United States District Court held that the appellee is entitled to use the name "John P. Dant" in its corporate name, and is entitled, as exclusive licensee of the owner John P. Dant, Jr., to use the name and mark "John P. Dant" in the manner and style in which such name and mark have been used in the whiskey business for many years. The Court held further that the trade-mark "John P. Dant" is not confusingly similar to appellant's trade-mark "J. W. Dant."
The Conclusions of Law are documented with appropriate authority, including several decisions of this court.
Inasmuch as the findings and conclusions are published, as shown, supra, and are entirely adequate, we find no occasion to re-write or add to Judge Shelbourne's excellent work.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. v. Log Still Distilling, LLC
...branded with my name." John P. Dant Distillery Co. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc. , 189 F. Supp. 821, 824 (W.D. Ky. 1960), aff'd , 297 F.2d 935 (6th Cir. 1962). Perhaps the patriarch anticipated some of his family's subsequent legal squabbles.2 Rather than stop production, however, J.W.’s son......
-
Friend v. HA Friend and Company
...confused purchasers. We find the district court's injunction to be entirely reasonable and appropriate. John P. Dant Distillery Co. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc., 297 F.2d 935 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed 371 U.S. 802, 83 S.Ct. 14, 9 L.Ed.2d 47 (1962); Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of Calif......
-
Continente v. Continente
...Milk Corp. v. Horlick, 7 Cir., 143 F.2d 32; John P. Dant Distillery Co. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc., D.C., 189 F.Supp. 821, aff'd 6 Cir., 297 F.2d 935.) As the court in Crane Co. v. Crane Heating & Air Conditioning Co. et al., 6 Cir., 299 F.2d 577 observed, "* * * the Crane brothers had th......
-
Crane Co. v. Crane Heating & Air Conditioning Co.
...that they were dealing with Crane Co. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson, 266 F.2d 129 (CA6, 1959); Dant Distillery Co. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc., 297 F.2d 935 (CA6, 1962) affirming D.C., 189 F. Supp. It was, of course, proper for R. J. Crane to use his surname in the business which he......