Alden v. Gross
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, ■ Shepard Barclay, Judge. The word “fruit,” in connection with the word “ vinegar,” can not be appropriated by one vinegar manufacturer to brand his goods, to the exclusion of other manufacturers or vendors of vinegar. Browne, Trade Marks, sect. 134; Phalon v. Wright, 5 Phila. 464 ; Canal Co. v. Ciarle, 13 Wall. 311; Re American Sardine Co., A Off. Gfaz. 495 ; Van Beil v. Prescott, 82 N. Y. 630 ; Pratt v. Farmer, 10 Off.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, ■ Shepard Barclay, Judge. The word “fruit,” in connection with the word “ vinegar,” can not be appropriated by one vinegar manufacturer to brand his goods, to the exclusion of other manufacturers or vendors of vinegar. Browne, Trade Marks, sect. 134; Phalon v. Wright, 5 Phila. 464 ; Canal Co. v. Ciarle, 13 Wall. 311; Re American Sardine Co., A Off. Gfaz. 495 ; Van Beil v. Prescott, 82 N. Y. 630 ; Pratt v. Farmer, 10 Off. Gfaz. 866 ; Stolces v. Landgraf, 17 Barb. 608; Corwin v. Daily, 7 Bosw. 222; Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 168. The words, “fruit…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
This was an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from using the word “fruit,” alone, or in combination with any other words, in branding the vinegar sold by the defendants ; the plaintiffs claiming that they have the exclusive right to the use,' in the above described manner, of this word, whether alone or in combination with other words.
The plaintiffs allege, in substance (omitting formal parts): (1) That they have been engaged for many years in the manufacture of vinegar; (2) that, early in 1878, they conceived the idea of branding their products as “fruit vinegar,” and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Filley v. FassettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Wolfe v. . BurkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Seabury v. GrosvenorU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1877
- Helmbold v. Henry T. Helmbold Manufacturing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- A. J. Reach Co. v. Simmons Hardware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Trask Fish Co. v. WoosterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Federal Products Co. v. LewisCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1927
- Shelley v. SperryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907