O'Rourke v. Central City Soap Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
In Equity. On pleadings and proofs. This was a bill in equity for the infringement of a trade-mark-claimed by the plaintiff, in the use of the words “anti-washboard,” as applied to a manufacture of soap. The facts of the case were substantially as follows: In 1872 one Thornton R. Walker took out a patent for a composition of matter said to constitute soap, but which did not designate the compound by any name except an “improved soap.”
Read the full summary
In Equity. On pleadings and proofs. This was a bill in equity for the infringement of a trade-mark-claimed by the plaintiff, in the use of the words “anti-washboard,” as applied to a manufacture of soap. The facts of the case were substantially as follows: In 1872 one Thornton R. Walker took out a patent for a composition of matter said to constitute soap, but which did not designate the compound by any name except an “improved soap.” About that time, Walker and his partners, doing business under the name of “Anti-washboard "Soap Company,” at Cary, Ohio, made and sold a soap which they called…
1Opinion of the CourtBiiown, J.
Two prominent objections are made in this case to the monopoly by the plaintiff of the words “anti-washboard” as applied to soap: First, that the words are descriptive of the quality of the article, and hence cannot be made the subject of a trade-mark; and, second, that they are not original with the plaintiff, but were unlawfully appropriated by him.
1. As a general rule, there is no doubt that, in order that mere words may be uphold as a' trade-mark, they must be purely arbitrary, *578or must indicate the origin or ownership of the article or fabric to which they are affixed. Words expressive of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Schulenberg v. HarrimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Wolfe v. GoulardNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Congress and Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co.New York Supreme Court · 1867
- Blackwell v. DibrellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia · 1878
- Dermott v. WallachSupreme Court of the United States · 1862
3Cited by21 opinions
- Kendall-Jackson Winery, Limited v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, a California Corporation, Dba Turning Leaf VineyardsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- W. G. Reardon Laboratories, Inc. v. B. & B. Exterminators, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1934
- In Re W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- Dietz v. Horton Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- W. A. Gaines & Co. v. E. Whyte Grocery, Fruit & Wine Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.