Potter Drug & Chemical Corporation v. Pasfield Soap Co.
Decision Date | 02 June 1900 |
Citation | 102 F. 490 |
Parties | POTTER DRUG & CHEMICAL CORP. v. PASFIELD SOAP CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Livingston Rutherford (J. E. & Wm. Maynadier, of counsel), for complainant.
Noah Tebbetts, for defendant.
In Equity. Suit for infringement of a trade-mark.
The complainant shows that it is, and for many years has been the owner and user of the duly-registered name 'Cuticura' as a trade-mark for soap, and that during such time it has used a peculiar style of type, and that the name 'Cuticura' was printed on the covers of the boxes; that a capital 'C' of peculiar design was used; and that the name of 'Cuticura' was also printed on the sides and ends of the boxes, and on the top and sides of the package in which each cake was wrapped. The bill charges that:
It will be observed that the charge is that the defendant uses the name of 'Cuticle,' and that he has imitated the style of type used by the complainant, and that he has thereby deceived and misled the public. The facts show that the defendant does manufacture and sell Cuticle Soap. Both the complainant and the defendant include three cakes of soap in each box. The defendant's box is approximately one-quarter of an inch longer, and slightly wider, than the complainant's box. The complainant's box is colored black, and the defendant's box is of a brick-red color. On the cover of the complainant's box are the words:
The defendant's cover contains the following:
The ends of the complainant's box show these words, 'Quarter Dozen Cuticura Soap,' while the ends of the defendant's box show, 'Quarter Dozen Cuticle soap.' On the front and opposite sides of the complainant's box are the words, 'Cuticura, Cuticura Resolvent, and Cuticura Soap,' and the words, 'Prepared by Potter Drug & Chemical Corporation, Boxton, U.S.A.,' while on the same relative sides of the defendant's box are the words, In the matter of type there is some similarity, especially in the peculiar style and position of the letters ''C' and 'S' wherever the name of the soap is exhibited, but the appearance of the defendant's outer box is so absolutely dissimilar and distinctive that no deception or confusion could reasonably arise.
Passing from the boxes to the wrappers immediately about the soaps the following conditions are found. On the face of the complainant's package are the words, 'Cuticura Soap, medicinal and toilet,'-- each word being placed under the word which precedes it; and beneath all, on a single line, are the words, 'Price, 25 cents.' The same identical arrangement occurs on the defendant's soap, except that above the word 'Cuticle' are the words, 'Trade-mark registered,' and beneath the word 'toilet' are the words, 'Price, 15 cents.' But the paper surrounding the complainant's soap is black, while the cardboard surrounding the defendant's soap is bright red. The words are printed on the complainant's package in red letters, and on the defendant's package in white letters. There is some similarity in the type,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coca-Cola Co. v. Carlisle Bottling Works
...in the second. In each case there was held to be no infringement. The three referred to are as follows: Potter D. & C. Corp. v. Pasfield Soap Co. (C. C.) 102 F. 490, 493; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Elliott Varnish Co. (C. C. A.) 232 F. 588, 590; Parfumerie Roger & Gallet v. M. C. M. Co. (C. C.......
-
A. J. Reach Company v. Simmons Hardware Company
...court erred in holding that the "unwary purchaser" afforded the true test of infringement. Centaur Co. v. Marshall, 97 F. 785; Drug Co. v. Pasfield Co., 102 F. 490; Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Co., 80 F. 105; Drug Co. v. Pasfield Co., 102 F. 490; Van Camp Co. v. Cruickshanks Co., 90 F. 81......
-
John T. Dyer Quarry Co. v. Schuylkill Stone Co.
...... John T. Dyer Quarry Company, a corporation of Pennsylvania,. has filed a bill in equity ... . . . And in. Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U.S. 540, 11. Sup.Ct. 625, 35 ... exclusive appropriation. In Potter Drug & Chemical Corp. v. Pasfield Soap Co. ......
-
No-D-Ka Dentifrice Co. v. SS Kresge Co.
...Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 80 F. 105; "Cuticura," as applied to soap, Potter Drug & Chemical Co. v. Pasfield Soap Co. (C. C.) 102 F. 490; "Cottolene," as applied to a substitute for lard, N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Central Lard Co. (C. C.) 64 F. However, the gre......