Diamond Crystal Salt Co. v. Worcester Salt Co.

Citations

• 221 F. 66
• 137 C.C.A. 16
• 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1295

Syllabus

<p>1. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names @=>3—Descriptive, Words—Secondary Meaning.</p> <p>Where the descriptive word “shaker,” used in connection with salt, had obtained a secondary meaning as salt made by complainant, it was immaterial whether it originally referred to salt used in a shaker, or to salt made by the religious sect known as Shakers.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. §§ 4—7; Dec. Dig. @=>3.]</p> <p>2. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names @=>97 — Actions — Scope oe Relief Awarded.</p> <p>While in some cases a trade-name will be protected only in limited territory, where the salt business, of both complainant and defendant was nation-wide, a decree protecting complainant’s trade-name only in that part of the United States north of the thirty-eighth parallel and east of the 102d meridian, was improper.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. §§ 110, 111; Dec. Dig. @=>97.]</p> <p>3. Trade,-Marks and Trade-Names @=>85—Actions—Dismissal Without Prejudice.</p> <p>Where, though complainant untruthfully advertised that its salt was absolutely pure and free from gypsum, there was no untruthfulness or deception in its trade-name, it was proper to dismiss a bill for unfair competition and infringement without prejudice to the right to file a new bill after the untruthful advertising had been abandoned, instead of dismissing it absolutely.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 94; Dec. Dig. @=>85.]</p> <p><gr=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>