Coty, Inc. v. Le Blume Import Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the CourtLearned Hand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). When Coty began to import his scent into the United States in 1909, the word “origan” signified nothing to his American customers except the article itself. Except for d’Héraud’s statement in his affidavit that Oriza had in 1901 “shipped a perfume to the United States” under that name, there is no evidence that before 1909 any one had ever used the word in America upon any toilet scent at all. Under that name Coty has by dint of advertising built up an enormous business, from which d’Héraud and others are naturally anxious to' profit. ■ It is quite true…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Jacobs v. BeechamSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- A. Bourjois & Co. v. KatzelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Dadirrian v. YacubianCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1900
- Dadirrian v. YacubianU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1896
3Cited by23 opinions
- California Apparel Creators v. Wieder of California, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Osawa & Co. v. B & H PHOTODistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Vivitar Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984
- Bell & Howell : Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1982
- Croton Watch Co., Inc. v. LaughlinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.