Pro-Phy-Lac-Tic Brush Co. v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
INCH, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the use, by defendant, of the word “Prophylactic.”
Plaintiff claims that the word “Prophylactic” itself is not well known and when used is descriptively used as an adjective. That a trade-mark in such a word can exist only when it has acquired a secondary meaning. That in the case of plaintiff it has obtained such meaning but not in the case of defendant. That defendant cannot rely on registrations of this trademark for tooth powder. That even if the trade-mark is good, the title is defective. That defendant’s vendor and defendant have…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- International News Service v. Associated PressSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Ives Laboratories, Inc. v. Darby Drug Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1978
- Vitarroz Corporation v. River Brand Rice Mills, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Elgin American Mfg. Co. v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1936
- Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Saratoga Carlsbad Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.