Pope Automatic Merchandising Co. v. McCrum-Howell Co.

Citations

• 191 F. 979
• 40 L.R.A.N.S. 463
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5014

Syllabus

<p>Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 70®) — Unfair Competition- — Similarity in Appearance.</p> <p>The manufacturer of an unpatented mechanical implement, who has selected nnpainted aluminum as the most suitable material and has adopted the most simple, efficient, and economical form of construction in which the combination can probably be embodied, with nothing for embellishment or distinction, except a name plate, cannot charge a competitor with unfair competition, because, for the same utilitarian reasons, he uses the same construction in all respects, excepting as to the nameplate, which he makes distinctive, and no deception of purchasers is shown.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 81; Dec. Dig. § 70*</p> <p>Unfair competition in use of trade-mark or trade-name, see note to Scheuer v. Muller, 20 C. C. A. 165; Lare v. Harper & Bros., 30 C. C. A. 376.]</p>