Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.

Syllabus

<p>No sign or form of words can be appropriated as a valid trade-mark which, from the nature of the fact conveyed by its primary meaning, others may employ with equal right for the same purpose. Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Co., 179 U. S. 665.</p> <p>A trade-mark must be distinctive in its original signification pointing to the origin of the article or it must become so by association. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311.</p> <p>“Rubberoid” being a descriptive word, meaning like rubber, the word “Ruberoid” is also descriptive, and, even though mispelled, cannot be appropriated as a trade-mark.</p> <p>While the Circuit Court cannot take cognizance of the question of unfair competition by use of plaintiff’s trade-name where diverse citizenship does not exist, and in a case where jurisdiction is based on trade-mark alone the judgment of that court is final, if diverse citizenship does exist and the requisite amount is in controversy, the judgment can be reviewed .in this court on the question of unfair competition independently of the questions involving validity of the trade-mark.</p> <p>The essence of unfair competition consists in the sale of the goods of one manufacturer or vendor for those of another, and this cannot be predicated solely on th'c use of a trade-name similar to that used by plaintiff if such trade-name is invalid as a trade-mark. To do so would be to give the plaintiff’s trade-name the full effect of a trademark notwithstanding its invalidity as such.</p>