Victor-American Fuel Co. v. Huerfano Agency Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 7794.,7794. |
| Citation | 15 F.2d 578 |
| Parties | VICTOR-AMERICAN FUEL CO. v. HUERFANO AGENCY CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Kenaz Huffman, of Denver, Colo. (Frank E. Gove, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for plaintiff.
Forrest C. Northcutt, of Denver, Colo. (Jesse G. Northcutt, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for defendants.
The complainant has for many years produced coal in large quantities from its mines, located in Colorado. It markets its product in Denver and Eastern Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, the larger part of Texas, and parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico. It also makes some shipments to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Pasadena, and Helena, Mont. In 1916 it adopted, and has since used, certain trade-marks and labels affixed to its coal to identify the same, and has directly, and through its dealers, expended considerable sums for advertising. As a result thereof complainant claims to have built up an extended and valuable trade, and alleges that its product has become known throughout its territory as "labeled coal," and is so ordered by dealers and consumers. It charges that the defendants, who are likewise engaged in the production and marketing of coal, have adopted and used in the complainant's territory since 1921 trade-marks and labels similar to those of the complainant's, and have also labeled their coal; that dealers and consumers are deceived into the belief that the coal so sold by the defendants is, or might be, the product of the complainant.
The defendants deny that the complainant has any exclusive right in its trade-marks, trade-names, or symbols, and, while admitting that it labels its coal as charged, deny that the complainant was the first to label coal in the manner alleged, or that it has any exclusive right so to do. It further denies that its labels or slogans are so similar to those of complainant as to deceive the public, or that retail dealers or consumers have at any time been confused or deceived by reason of the acts or conduct of the defendants.
The case has been fully argued, and the court favored with exhaustive briefs. I have digested the evidence, examined the authorities cited and others available, and reached certain definite conclusions on the essential points in issue. I will state them very briefly. Both briefs agree upon certain rules of the law of unfair competition that I hereafter refer to. This renders citation of authorities unnecessary.
The complainant asserts an exclusive right within its territory to place labels or stickers on coal as it goes to market, and also an exclusive right to advertise and sell the same as "labeled coal." Exhibits A to J, inclusive, attached to the bill, are the complainant's labels. Their predominating features are: The round shape, red as the predominating color, and the figure of a shovel full of coal dividing them through the center at an angle of 45 degrees. The minor features are the white circle, or band, around the edge, with the slogan, "This label assures you this is genuine Maitland coal," etc., in small, black letters. This term, or slogan, varies according to the different mines of the complainant, such as the Maitland, Sunshine, Chandler, etc. Some, but not all, of the labels, bear the name of the complainant.
The defendants' labels (Exhibits 1 to 3, inclusive, and Exhibit 5) are likewise round, and the predominating color is red. Here the similarity ceases. The defendants' label is divided horizontally by the word "Haco," with the geographical descriptive word "Colorado" above, and the word "Coals" below, in white letters on the red background; the style or type of lettering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Oil Company v. Standard Oil Company
...Refining Co., 10 Cir., 213 F.2d 354, 362. 18 Cf. Schneider Brewing Co. v. Century Distilling Co., supra; Victor-American Fuel Co. v. Huerfano Agency Co., D.C. Colo., 15 F.2d 578; P. Lorillard Co. v. Peper, 8 Cir., 86 F. 956. 19 Williams Co. v. Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc., 4 Cir., 233 F.2d 39......
-
Avrick v. Rockmont Envelope Co.
...coming from the same source as the trademarked article. Schneider Brewing Co. v. Century Distilling Co., supra; Victor American Fuel Co. v. Huerfano Agency Co., D.C., 15 F.2d 578; Solis Cigar Co. v. Pozo, 16 Colo. 388, 26 P. 556, 25 Am.St. Rep. 279; Driverless Car Co. v. Glessner-Thornberry......
-
Dwight S. Williams Co. v. Lykens Hosiery Mills
...as the trade-marked article. Schneider Brewing Co. v. Century Distilling Co., supra 10 Cir., 107 F.2d 699; Victor American Fuel Co. v. Huerfano Agency Co., D.C., 15 F.2d 578." Avrick et al. v. Rockmont Envelope Co., 10 Cir., 155 F.2d 568, The test finally comes to this: Whether the similitu......
-
Albert Dickinson Co. v. MELLOS PEANUT CO. OF ILLINOIS
...exercising ordinary prudence and not whether it would deceive a careless buyer who makes no examination. Victor-American Fuel Co. v. Huerfano Agency Co., D.C.Colo.1926, 15 F.2d 578 affirmed 8 Cir., 1927, 23 F.2d The alleged infringement complained of is the defendant's use of the phrase Blo......