Albert Dickinson Co. v. Mellos Peanut Co. of Illinois, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
LA BUY, District Judge.
The complaint herein alleges plaintiff prepares and sells popcorn for human consumption, that on May 26, 1931, it registered in the United States Patent Office its trademark Big Buster, No. 283,322; that said trademark when adopted was new, fanciful and arbitrary and never before used by any other concern on any goods of substantially the same properties; that plaintiff’s sales have been extensive and large sums were spent in advertising the trademarked product; that the trademark Big Buster is distinctive of the plaintiff’s goods and has become identified by the trade…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Avrick v. Rockmont Envelope Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
- Barbasol Co. v. JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Albert Dickinson Co. v. Mellos Peanut Co. Of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- United States v. DaubendiekDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
- Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1950
- Carter v. DavisonWyoming Supreme Court · 1961
- Carter v. DavisonWyoming Supreme Court · 1961