Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Royal

Decision Date16 March 1903
Docket Number1,131.
Citation122 F. 337
PartiesROYAL BAKING POWDER CO. v. ROYAL.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

This bill was filed to restrain the defendant, R. T. Royal, from using the name 'Royal' in connection with a baking powder made by him, upon the ground that the complainant has an exclusive right to designate the baking powder made by it by that trade-name. Upon the bill, answer, exhibits, affidavits, and counter affidavits a temporary injunction was granted against the particular label and forms of advertising shown to have been used by defendant. That order was in these words: 'And on the 19th day of February, 1900, this cause coming on to be heard upon the motion of the complainant for a temporary restraining order and injunction, and after hearing counsel for the parties, and the court being advised, it is now ordered that until further orders of this court the defendant, R. T. Royal, his clerks, attorneys, servants, and workmen, and all in privity with him, be, and they are hereby, restrained and enjoined from making any use whatever of circulars like the circular filed with the bill, and marked 'Defendant's Circular'; also from making any use whatever of the circulars like the circular produced with the bill and marked 'R. T. Royal Co. Circular,' and consisting in part of the words 'R. T. Royal Co.'; also from making any use whatever of the words 'The New Royal' in connection with baking powder caused to be by the defendant prepared and compounded; also from making use of the labels like, or substantially like, the label produced with the bill, marked 'Defendant's Advertisement A' and Defendant's Advertisement B'; also from in any form or manner whatsoever making use of the word 'Royal' as the name or designation of a baking powder not manufactured by complainant; also from making any inequitable or misleading use whatever of the word 'Royal' in connection with the manufacture or sale of baking powder; also from doing any act or thing whatsoever to cause baking powder not manufactured by complainant to be offered to sold as Royal Baking Powder; also from in any form or manner whatsoever infringing or trespassing upon complainant's rights as the owner, manufacturer, and vendor of a brand of baking powder known as 'Royal Baking Powder.' But nothing in this order shall prevent the defendant from using his own name upon other labels or other advertisements relating to baking powder, where it shall be clearly and unmistakably specified and clearly and unmistakably shown upon such other labels and advertisements that the baking powder to which they relate is made by the defendant, and is his product, as distinguished from the product of the complainant, and where such other labels and advertisements shall otherwise conform to the terms of this order. ' Defendant, availing himself of the proviso contained in the restraining order, continued the manufacture and sale of baking powder, using upon his cans a new label, which he claimed to be authorized by the terms of the injunction. To restrain this new label, complainant filed a supplemental bill, stating the facts. This was answered, and all intentional fraud denied. Proof was taken, and upon a final hearing the court made final the injunction theretofore granted, in the very terms of that decree, but dismissed the complainant's supplemental bill, and denied any relief against the product as sold and advertised under defendant's new label. The complainant was awarded an accounting, but failed to establish any damages. From the final decree the complainant has appealed, and seeks to extend the scope of the decree so as to prevent the defendant from using the name 'Royal' in connection with baking powder altogether, or, in default of a broad injunction, to prevent the use of the word 'Royal' upon the front label of the cans in which his powder is sold.

The complainant, the Royal Baking Powder Company, is a corporation, which for many years has made and sold a brand of baking powder under the trade-name or designation of 'Royal Baking Powder.' This baking powder is put up in tin cans conspicuously labeled 'Royal Baking Powder.' This label is shown on following page: (Image Omitted)

This label is in colors; the front or more conspicuous half being upon a red background, the lettering being in white; the other half in yellow, the lettering black. The defendant, R. T. Royal, was for some years engaged in the business of making and dealing in bicycles and bicycle supplies and sundries in the city of Louisville, Ky. Some time prior to the filing of this bill he added the business of a manufacturer of baking powder, which he put up in cans like those of the complainant. The label used before the restraining order is shown on opposite page.

The background of this label was a shade of red, with lettering in white. The shade of red differed slightly from the shade employed by complainant. The back of the label was in white, with black lettering.

After the restraining order the defendant adopted a new label, which is shown on page 342.

The background of this label in front is blue, the letters white. The background of the other side of the label encircling the can is white, and the lettering black.

Until restrained, the defendant advertised his product in circulars and letters, reproducing the first label on the front of his cans. Some of these circulars or advertisements were prefaced in bold type with the words 'Ask for the New Royal.' In addition to this, some of his circulars were signed, 'R. T. Royal Co.'

There was also evidence that the new or blue label shown above had actually caused, through the conspicuousness and significance of the word 'Royal,' some sale of the defendant's manufacture as and for the product of the complainant company. There is also evidence that the product of defendant was sold to the retailer at a less price than that of the complainant, and some evidence of sales being made by retailers of defendant's cans when Royal Baking Powder was called for, without explaining that it was not the well-known product made only by the complainant company.

After the decree, and pending the accounting, the defendant wrote the letter set out below, which was put in evidence on the accounting for the purpose of establishing the continued dishonest purpose of defendant in the use of his name in connection with baker powder:

'(Letter of R. T. Royal to Royal Baking Powder Company.)
'Royal & Co., Promoters,
'58 Courier-Journal Building.
'Louisville, Ky., April 15, 1901.
'Gentlemen: Presuming that you will abide by the decision of the United States Court in this last suit of yours against me, I think it best, if possible, to avoid any further friction of this kind. I am arranging to begin manufacturing my powder again, and to be frank, before getting too far into the business, will say that I will consider any proposition toward your buying me out. I have a company already to close with me here, and have several offers from N.Y. to come there and manufacture my goods. If you wish to keep me out of the buss, enough to pay me five thousand dollars, I would accept this and nothing less. If not, I will proceed with my negotiations to complete my organization and place to begin operations. I merely mention this at this time. So that if you anticipate any further fight or attempt to squeeze me out, which would be the cheaper and better plan, to keep up your efforts to suppress me or buy me out or compete for the business in a legitimate business basis. If you wish to consider this, kindly let me hear from you at once, as I will postpone further negotiations until I have had time to hear from you. You may appeal, which will, of course, be objectionable, but my people are satisfied to go ahead in my present position.
'Very respectfully, R. T. Royal.'

Before LURTON, DAY and SEVERENS, Circuit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 5, 1945
    ...35 L.Ed. 247; Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 1895, 144 N.Y. 462, 39 N.E. 490, 27 L. R.A. 42, 43 Am.St.Rep. 769; Royal Baking Powder v. Royal, 6 Cir., 1903, 122 F. 337; Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict, 1905, 198 U.S. 118, 25 S.Ct. 609, 49 L.Ed. 972; Goldwyn Pictures Corp. v. ......
  • C.A. Briggs Co. v. National Wafer Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1913
    ...de Fecamp, 120 F. 74, 56 C. C. A. 480; Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co., 108 F. 821, 48 C. C. A. 48, 65 L. R. A. 878; Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Royal, 122 F. 337, 58 C. A. 499; Wolf Bros. & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 165 F. 413, 91 C. C. A. 363; Wotherspoon v. Currie, L. R. 5 H. L. 508; Mo......
  • Coca-Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 3, 1946
    ...& Co., 265 U.S. 526, 44 S.Ct. 615, 68 L.Ed. 1161; Rathbone, Sard & Co. v. Champion Steel Range Co., 6 Cir., 189 F. 26; Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Royal, 6 Cir., 122 F. 337; M. Werk Co. v. Grosberg, 6 Cir., 250 F. 968; cf. Philadelphia Dairy Products v. Quaker City Ice Cream, 306 Pa. 164, 15......
  • O. & W. Thum Co. v. Dickinson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 1, 1917
    ... ... Co., 200 F. 720, 723, 119 C.C.A. 164 (C.C.A. 6); ... Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Royal, 122 F. 337, 345, ... 58 C.C.A. 499 (C.C.A ... ...
  • 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