Potter Drug & Chemical Corp. v. Pasfield Soap Co.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1901 |
| Docket Number | 82. |
| Citation | 106 F. 914 |
| Parties | POTTER DRUG & CHEMICAL CORP. v. PASFIELD SOAP CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
J. E. Maynadier, for appellant.
Noah Tebbetts, for appellee.
This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the circuit court, Eastern district of New York, dismissing a bill in equity to restrain defendant from selling soap which, it is alleged, wrongfully simulated complainant's soap.
Before LACOMBE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
The complainant manufactures a soap which it calls 'Cuticura Soap.' The same has been advertised at considerable expense, and has become somewhat widely and favorably known. Defendant sells a soap which it calls 'Cuticle Soap.' The opinion of the circuit court sets forth in minute detail the manner in which the soaps of the respective parties are prepared for the market,-- how they are put up, wrapped, lettered, etc. It is unnecessary to repeat this description. The opinion may be found in 102 F. 490. We have little doubt that in selecting a name which began with the first five letters of that applied to complainant's soap, and which referred, as that did, to the skin, the defendant had some expectation that he might succeed in effecting some sales, at least, on the strength of complainant's advertising; and if we were able to find anything in box, wrapper, lettering, or general get-up of the package which might tend in any way to produce confusion in the mind of the purchaser, we should not hesitate to grant the relief prayed for. But this element of attempted deceptive resemblance, usually prominent, and, when prominent, controlling (Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical & Mfg. Co., 25 C.C.A. 314, 80 F. 105; Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Globe Refining Co., 34 C.C.A. 405, 92 F. 357), is wholly wanting, and its absence is not supplemented by any proof that the use of the first five letters of complainant's trade-word is in itself sufficient to mislead. Under these circumstances, we concur in the conclusion of the circuit court. Decree affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States ex rel Flynn v. Fuellhart
-
Northam Warren Corporation v. Universal Cosmetic Co.
...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 trade-mark is but a species of advertising, its purpose being to fix the id......