Oppermann v. Waterman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from, an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: D. H. JohNSON, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve a tern-porary injunctional order theretofore granted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: D. H. JohNSON, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve a tern-porary injunctional order theretofore granted. It appeared by the complaint and affidavits in support thereof that the' plaintiff has been engaged at Milwaukee in selling household dyes manufactured by Hoitmann Bros,, in Cologne, Germany, since the year 1892, and that since May, 1893, he-has sold such dyes under the label “ German Household Dyes,” in small, rectangular paper packages, with peculiar and distinctive labels printed in ink…
1Opinion of the CourtWiNslow, J.
It may well be seriously doubted whether the words “ German Household,” or either of them, can be appropriated as a trade-mark by the plaintiff. The word “ German ” would seem, under the facts before the court, to have been used in a merely geographical sense, as indicating the country where the dyes were manufactured; and the word “ Household,” in the same way, seems to denote quality or character of the dyes. Browne, Trade-Marks (2d ed.), §§ 29, 192; Dunbar v. Glenn, 42 Wis. 118. We do not decide these questions, however, because we do not construe the injunctional order as absolutely…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Dunbar v. GlennWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Yellow Cab Co. v. BeckerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Laundry, Dry Cleaning, Dye House Workers Union, Local 3008 v. Laundry Workers International UnionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958