Legal Opinion
American Chicle Co. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 4, 1954No. 145, Docket 22856PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The District Court found defendants guilty of unfair competition, and accordingly enjoined them from marketing “Clor-Aids” in a package similar to plaintiff’s “Clorets.” We affirm that part of the judgment on the opinion below, 112 F.Supp. 848 at page 850.
The District Court also held that defendants’ trade-name “Clor-Aid” does not infringe plaintiff’s trade-name “Clorets.” We agree. Since (thanks to the great popularity of chlorophyll products) the word “Clor” is common to the trade,1 it cannot be used as a basis for finding *682' trade-mark infringement. Significant here is…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Di Giovanni v. Camden Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- May's Furs & Ready-To-Wear, Inc. v. BauerNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Feathercombs, Inc. v. Solo Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Huber Baking Company v. Stroehmann Brothers Company and Quality Bakers of America Cooperative, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Ambassador East, Inc. v. Shelton Corners, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
- Societe Anonyme De La Grande Distillerie E. Cusenier Fils Aine & Cie v. Julius Wile Sons & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.