William Waltke & Co. v. Geo. H. Schafer & Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 1284. |
| Parties | WILLIAM WALTKE & CO. v. GEO. H. SCHAFER & CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted January 16, 1920.
Geo H. Schafer, of Fort Madison, Iowa, in pro. per.
E. T Brandenburg, of Washington, D.C. (Franklin H. Hough, of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee.
Geo. H Schafer & Co., a partnership, applied for registration of 'U-Lavo' as a trade-mark on shaving cream. Registration was opposed by William Waltke & Co., a corporation, on the ground that 'U-Lavo' was so similar to the mark 'Lava,' in use by it on toilet soap, that it was not registerable. The Patent Office overruled the opposition and registered the mark.
William Waltke in 1858 established a soap-manufacturing business, which was continued by him and others until acquired by the opposer, who now owns it. In 1893 Wm. Waltke & Co., a partnership, the immediate predecessor of the opposer corporation, adopted, and began the use of, the word 'Lava' as a trade-mark on its soap. Later its business was transferred to the corporation, and with it the right to the use of the mark. Upwards of a half million dollars have been spent by the opposer and its predecessor in advertising goods under the mark 'Lava,' and the corporation's plant has come to be known as 'The Home of Lava Soap.' Applicant did not adopt its mark until 1913.
At the outset it is urged by the applicant that the opposer's mark is descriptive, and hence not entitled to registration. The word 'lava,' according to Webster's Dictionary, comes from 'lavare,' to wash, and means, in English, fluid rock. It may suggest the function of soap, but it does not describe its properties. In re Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co., 49 App.D.C. . . ., 262 F. 635, and the cases therein cited. Much stress is laid upon Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co., 220 U.S. 446, 31 Sup.Ct. 456, 55 L.Ed. 536, by the applicant with respect to this point, but it is easily distinguished from the case before us. In that case the word 'rubberoid' was used on goods which contained no rubber, but was in the 'nature of soft, flexible rubber.' It is a compound of the word 'rubber' and the suffix 'oid.' 'Oid' is defined by the lexicographers as meaning the form or resemblance of the thing indicated; 'like,' as in 'anthropoid,' like man. The mark 'Rubberoid,' as applied to the goods in question, meant that they were like rubber, which was true, and was therefore descriptive.
The owner of a trade-mark has the right, not only to its exclusive use on goods which he has manufactured, but also on goods which he may afterwards produce, if they belong to the same general class as those upon which he has been using the mark. Gutta-Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Ajax Manufacturing Co., 48 App.D.C. 233; Walter Baker Co. v. Harrison, 32 App.D.C. 272. No person may legally interfere with the use of the mark by him in the natural expansion of his business. Simplex Heating Co. v. Gold Car H. & L. Co., 43 App.D.C. 28. When chemically analyzed, shaving cream and toilet soap may not be identical in all their elements; but in the popular mind a shaving cream is a soap, and the manufacture of it by opposer would be a natural step in the broadening out of its business as a soap producer. In fact it has already taken that step, for it is now manufacturing shaving soap and shaving cream, although it does not put them out as its own products. They are produced to be distributed by others. Toilet soap and shaving soap or cream are related materials, and since opposer has a right to use its trade-mark on toilet soap it may prevent the use of it by others on shaving soap or shaving cream.
But it is contended that applicant is not attempting to use opposer's mark, or one similar to it, and consequently that the rule we have been discussing does not apply. The Assistant Commissioner held that there was a wide difference between the meaning of the two marks. The word 'lava,' he said, suggests grit, while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Elliott
...A. N. S. 274); Atlas Mfg. Co. v. Street & Smith, 204 F. 398, 405, 122 C. C. A. 568, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1002; William Waltke & Co. v. Schaeffer Co., 49 App. D. C. 254, 263 F. 650; and that, "where a party has been in the habit of labeling his goods with a distinctive mark, so that purchaser......
-
Pecheur Lozenge Co. v. National Candy Co.
...Independent Brewing Co., 9 Cir., 191 F. 489, 497; Liggett & Myer Tobacco Co. v. Hynes, D.C., 20 F. 883. 16 William Waltke & Co. v. Geo. H. Schafer & Co., 49 App.D.C. 254, 263 F. 650; Godillot v. American Grocery Co., C.C., 71 F. 873, 874; Scriven et al. v. North et al., 4 Cir., 134 F. 366, ......
-
Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. v. Rock-Ola Mfg. Corp.
...malt syrup, Anheuser-Busch v. Budweiser Malt Products Corporation, D. C., 287 F. 243; toilet soap and shaving soap, Waltke & Co. v. Schafer & Co., 49 App.D.C. 254, 263 F. 650; automobile and tires, Willys-Overland Co. v. Akron-Overland Tire Co., D. C., 268 F. 151; and men's suits and men's ......
-
Baker v. Master Printers Union of New Jersey, Civ. No. 162.
...rarely, if ever, afforded an opportunity to make a side by side comparison. He must rely upon his memory. William Waltke & Co. v. Geo. H. Schafer & Co., 49 App.D.C. 254, 263 F. 650; Godillot v. American Grocery Co., C.C., 71 F. 873, 874; Scriven et al. v. North et al., 4 Cir., 134 F. 366, 3......
-
Trade Emblems
...Inc. v. Charles H. Phillips Chemical Co., 53 F.2d 1011 (2nd Cir. 1931)(Patagonian); William Waltke and Co. v. Geo. H. Shafer and Co., 263 F. 650 (D.C. Cir. 1920)(Latin). 129. Of course, if the borrowed word is spelled or pronounced like an English word, it will be treated as a variation on ......