Northam Warren Corporation v. Universal Cosmetic Co.

Decision Date29 April 1927
Docket NumberNo. 3766.,3766.
PartiesNORTHAM WARREN CORPORATION v. UNIVERSAL COSMETIC CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Mock & Blum, of New York City, and George E. Mueller, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Edwin D. Lawlor, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before ALSCHULER, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PAGE, Circuit Judge.

In appellant's suit, charging appellee with unfair competition and infringement of its registered trade-mark "Cutex," the master's findings, favorable to appellant, were reversed by the court, and the bill dismissed. The evidence was not sufficient to justify a finding for appellant on the charge of unfair competition.

Numerous of the articles made and sold by the parties were, as to the purposes for which they were intended and advertised to the public, substantially identical. Appellee said in argument that the formula for the cuticle removing liquid was probably the same in both articles.

Appellee used as its designating trade-mark the unregistered "Cuticlean," and the only question is. Is there, considering the purposes for which they were used, such a similarity in the words "Cutex" and "Cuticlean" as to amount to an infringement? The words were fashioned by the respective parties, and neither word had any pre-existence or meaning. This case differs in that respect from the cases of Potter Drug Co. v. Pasfield Soap Co. (C. C.) 102 F. 490, 494, and (C. C. A.) 106 F. 914, and Flexlume Sign Co. v. Opalite Sign Co., 292 F. 98 (7th C. C. A.).

A trade-mark is but a species of advertising, its purpose being to fix the identity of the article and the name of the producer in the minds of the people who see the advertisement, so that they may afterward use the knowledge themselves and carry it to others having like desires and needs for such article. All advertising is an appeal to human interest and instincts, and its value has become so well known that manufacturers, merchants, and other concerns, having property for sale, oftentimes spend millions annually in creating a market and keeping open markets already created. Experience seems to justify such expenditures.

While the human mind drops and forgets much that it hears and sees, yet it holds fast to some word, place, name, sign, or symbol contained in an advertisement, through which some human need has been supplied, and that recollection is carried by the people into times and places far removed from the times and places of the publication....

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 19 d4 Dezembro d4 1968
    ...& Co., 265 F.2d 385, 387 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 819, 80 S.Ct. 64, 4 L. Ed.2d 65 (1959); Northam Warren Corp. v. Universal Cosmetic Co., 18 F.2d 774, 775 (7th Cir. 1927); Atlantic Monthly Co. v. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 197 F.Supp. 524, 532 (S.D.N.Y.1961). 61 Not to exceed......
  • Harold F. Ritchie, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 29 d5 Julho d5 1960
    ...Chewing Gum, Inc., 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 560, 563; Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 3 Cir., 206 F.2d 144, 147; Northam Warren Corp. v. Universal Cosmetic Co., 7 Cir., 18 F.2d 774, 775. 4 Brylcreem had not acquired such a generic meaning in the public eye as to necessitate imitation of its name......
  • LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 12 d2 Novembro d2 1946
    ...1100 (Spun-lo and Sunglo); Florence Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co., 2 Cir., 178 F. 73 (Keepclean and Sta-Kleen); Northam Warren Corp. v. Universal Cosmetic Co., 7 Cir., 18 F.2d 774 (Cuticlean and Cutex); Gehl v. Hebe Co., 7 Cir., 276 F. 271 (Hebe and Meje); National Biscuit Co. v. J. B. Carr ......
  • Lebas Fashion Imports of USA, Inc. v. ITT Hartford Ins. Group
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 d2 Outubro d2 1996
    ...use the knowledge themselves and carry it to others having like desires and needs for such article." (Northam Warren Corp. v. Universal Cosmetic Co. (7th Cir.1927) 18 F.2d 774, 774.) Moreover, as the trademark statute itself makes clear, the advertising of a good or service is one of the wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Harvard as a model in trademark and domain name protection.
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 29 No. 2, June 2003
    • 22 d0 Junho d0 2003
    ...THE TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946 ANALYZED, ANNOTATED AND EXPLAINED 4 (1946)). (21.) Id. (citing Northam Warren Corp. v. Universal Cosmetic Co., 18 F.2d 774, 774-75 (7th Cir. (22.) Id. at 664 n.17 (citing Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S.S. Kresage Co., 316 U.S. 203, 205 (1941)). (23.) J......

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