Yale Electric Corporation v. Robertson

Citation26 F.2d 972
Decision Date11 June 1928
Docket NumberNo. 305.,305.
PartiesYALE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. ROBERTSON, Commissioner of Patents, et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Henry F. Parmelee, of New York City (Melville Church, of Washington, D. C., and William S. Pritchard, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Taylor, Durey & Pierson, of Stamford, Conn. (Archibald Cox, Louis H. Porter, and F. Carroll Taylor, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The original examiner concluded that the use of the word "Yale" upon the plaintiff's goods was confusing to the defendant's buyers, but based his decision upon the ground that the mark sought to be registered was only a proper name, whose registration the statute did not allow. The commissioner affirmed this decision on the same ground, without passing on the evidence of confusion. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in turn affirmed the Commissioner, but, because of a change in the law, solely on its own finding that there was likelihood of confusion between the wares of the two parties. The District Judge took more testimony, and also reached the conclusion that there was likelihood of confusion. As the case came up, he was, and we are, required to accept the findings of the Patent Office on such an issue of fact, unless the evidence to the contrary is altogether convincing, Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. 120, 125, 14 S. Ct. 772 (38 L. Ed. 657), for the new evidence was not of a kind to change the result. The proof as a whole is far from convincing against the finding; the record contains many instances where the defendant's buyers did, or said that they should, suppose the plaintiff's flash-lights to be one of the defendant's products, and it is extremely probable that mistakes will continue unless the practice ceases.

Therefore, so far as we can see, only two points of law need be considered: Whether the defendant's goods have "the same descriptive properties" as the plaintiff's, which is a condition upon its opposition to registration; whether, in view of the fact that it makes no flash-lights or batteries, it may complain of the plaintiff's use of its name. The law of unfair trade comes down very nearly to this — as judges have repeated again and again — that one merchant shall not divert customers from another by representing what he sells as emanating from the second. This has been, and perhaps even more now is, the whole Law and the Prophets on the subject, though it assumes many guises. Therefore it was at first a debatable point whether a merchant's good will, indicated by his mark, could extend beyond such goods as he sold. How could he lose bargains which he had no means to fill? What harm did it do a chewing gum maker to have an ironmonger use his trade-mark? The law often ignores the nicer sensibilities.

However, it has of recent years been recognized that a merchant may have a sufficient economic interest in the use of his mark outside the field of his own exploitation to justify interposition by a court. His mark is his authentic seal; by it he vouches for the goods which bear it; it carries his name for good or ill. If another uses it, he borrows the owner's reputation, whose quality no longer lies within his own control. This is an injury, even though the borrower does not tarnish it, or divert any sales by its use; for a reputation, like a face, is the symbol of its possessor and creator, and another can use it only as a mask. And so it has come to be recognized that, unless the borrower's use is so foreign to the owner's as to insure against any identification of the two, it is unlawful. Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney, 247 F....

To continue reading

Request your trial
246 cases
  • Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 5 Mayo 1945
    ...Co. v. Sweet "16" Shop, Inc., 8 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 920; Buckspan v. Hudson's Bay Co., 5 Cir., 1927, 22 F.2d 721; Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson, 2 Cir., 1928, 26 F.2d 972; Western Oil Refining Co. v. Jones, 6 Cir., 1928, 27 F.2d 205; Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corp., Cust. & Pat.App., 19......
  • Estate of Presley v. Russen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 16 Abril 1981
    ...a reputation, like a face, is the symbol of its possessor and creator, and another can use it only as a mask. Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972, 974 (2nd Cir. 1928). See James Burrough, Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 275-76 (7th Cir. 1976); Professional Golfers A......
  • Philco Corporation v. Phillips Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 19 Enero 1943
    ...300 F. 509 (magazine, hats); Hudson Motor Car Co. v. Hudson Tire Co., D.C., 21 F.2d 453 (automobiles, tires); Yale Electric Corporation v. Robertson, 2 Cir., 26 F.2d 972 (flashlights, locks); Duro Co. v. Duro Co., D.C., 27 F.2d 339 (spark plugs, internal combustion engines); Standard Oil Co......
  • Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Rabanne
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 9 Septiembre 1986
    ...555, 560-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); James Burrough, Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 572 F.2d 574 (7th Cir. 1978); Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972 (2d Cir.1928); The Sophistication of the 12. The goods in issue — sports wear — are minor purchases that may be categorized as "impul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Historical Perspectives & Reflections on "matal v. Tam" and the Future of Offensive Trademarks
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Journal of Intellectual Property Law (FC Access) No. 25-1, 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...of trademarks in order to secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill of his business . . . ."). See also Yale Elect. Corp. v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972, 974 (2d Cir. 1928) ("[A merchant's] mark is his authentic seal; by it he vouches for the goods which bear it; it carries his name for good ......
  • The 2006 Trademark Dilution Revision Act Rolls Out a Luxury Claim and a Parody Exemption
    • United States
    • University of North Carolina School of Law North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology No. 8-2006, January 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...the Dilution Rationale for Trademark-Trade Identity Protection, 74 Trademark Rep. 289, 309 (1984). 33 See Yale Elec. Corp. v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1928) (finding that use of "YALE" lock mark for flashlights and batteries constituted infringement); Aunt Jemima Mills v. Rigney, 247......
  • Irrelevant confusion.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 2, January 2010
    • 1 Enero 2010
    ...Law, 86 B.U.L. REV. 547, 575-79 (2006). (41.) Id. (42.) 247 F. 407, 408 (2d Cir. 1917). (43.) Id. at 409. (44.) Id. at 409-10 (45.) 26 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. (46.) Id. at 974. (47.) Id. (48.) Frank I. Schechter, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 HARV. L. REV. 813, 833 (1927) (arguin......
  • "i See What You're Saying": Trademarked Terms and Symbols as Protected Consumer Commentary in Consumer Opinion Websites
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 24-01, September 2000
    • Invalid date
    ...Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 314 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. 1963); Locks and flashlights, Yale Elec. Corp. v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1928). 114. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1054. 115. See id. 116. Id. 117. Id. at 1054. 118. Bally, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 1163. 119. Brookfield, ......
  • 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