Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Dreadnaught Tire & Rubber Co.

Citations

• 225 F. 138
• 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1232

Syllabus

<p>L Tbade-Marks and Trade-Names <@=>3—Trade-Mark—What is—“Vacuum”—“Suction.”</p> <p>An automobile tire, the tread of which consisted of four or five circular rows' of cup-shaped rubber projections, was called. a “vacuum cup” tire, and it was advertised that the suction hold of the vacuum cups would prevent skidding. Held, that the name was merely descriptive, meaning no more than suction cups, for the expressions “vacuum” and “suction” are practically synonymous, although suction may be the result of vacuum, and hence there could be no trade-mark either in “vacuum cup” or “vacuum tread.”</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. §§ 4-7; Dec. Dig. <©=>3.</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Suction.]</p> <p>2. Tbade-Marks and Trade-Names <§=>70—Unfair Competition—What Constitutes.</p> <p>Complainant’s tires had on each side the words “Pennsylvania Vacuum Cup Oil-Proof,” preceded and followed by a monogram, consisting of the capital letters “V” and “C,” and also the words “Pennsylvania Rubber Co,. Jeannette, Pa.,” and numerals indicating the dimensions of the tire. Defendant’s tires had on one side the words “Made by the Dreadnaught Tire & Rubber Co., Baltimore, Md., and numerals indicating the dimensions, and on the other side the words “Vacuum Tread” and similar numerals. The wrappers were equally dissimilar, and the color of defendant’s tires was different from those of complainant’s. Held, that defendant was not guilty of attempting to palm off its tires as those of complainant, and hence would not be restrained, though a party not having a trade-mark in a name will be protected, where another attempts to use it to defraud the public into believing his goods were made by the other.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 81; Dec. Dig. <§=>70J</p> <p>3. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names <§=>70—Unfair Competition—What Constitutes.</p> <p>Defendant sold its “seconds,” which were