Fleischmann v. Newman
New York Supreme Court
Action by Maximilian Fleischmann and another, trading as Fleischmann & Co., against Simon Newman, to restrain defendant from manufacturing and selling compressed yeast in packages of the same size and shape as the-packages of compressed yeast manufactured by plaintiffs, and from using a wrapper of the same material, and a label of the same"color, and bearing the-same device, as that used by plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Action by Maximilian Fleischmann and another, trading as Fleischmann & Co., against Simon Newman, to restrain defendant from manufacturing and selling compressed yeast in packages of the same size and shape as the-packages of compressed yeast manufactured by plaintiffs, and from using a wrapper of the same material, and a label of the same"color, and bearing the-same device, as that used by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ yeast was sold in small square packages, wrapped in tin-foil, with a circular yellow label, with “Fleischmann & Co.’s Compressed Yeast. None genuine without our signa-' turc.” and a…
1Opinion of the CourtIngraham, J.
On the facts presented in this case, I do not think plaintiff is entitled to an injunction. The only words that are on both labels are “ Comr *609pressed Yeast,” and “Yone genuine without our signature.” These words could not be made the subject of a trade-mark. Compressed yeast indicates the character and composition of the article, and cannot be appropriated by any one to his exclusive use. Caswell v. Davis, 58 N. Y. 233. Yor can plaintiff appropriate'the form of a package so as to exclude others from using the same character of package. Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. Troxell, 89 N. Y. 297. It…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Caswell v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. . TroxellNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Indurated Fibre Co. v. Amoskeag Indurated Fibre Ware Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1889