United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.
Citations
- 248 U.S. 90
- 39 S. Ct. 48
- 63 L. Ed. 141
- 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1694
Syllabus
<p>A right of trade-mark is not a right in gross; it exists only as appurtenant to an established business and for the protection of the good will thereof. P. 97.</p> <p>The adoption of a trade-mark does not project the right of protection in advance of the extension of the trade. P. 98.</p> <p>Where A had a trade-mark in Massachusetts, in connection with a business there and in neighboring States, and B, afterwards, in good •- faith, without notice of A’s usé or intent to injure or forestall A, adopted the same mark in Kentucky, where A’s business theretofore had not extended, and built up a valuable business under it there, held, that A, upon entering B’s field with notice of the situation, had no equity to enjoin B as an infringer, but was estopped. P. 103.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- within regional market, defendant first user in that market had priority over plaintiff earlier user in a different region who now sought to enter that market
- superseded by statute as stated in Foxtrap, Inc. v. Foxtrap, Inc., 671 F.2d 636 (D.C.Cir.1982)
- “The law of trademarks is but a part of the broader law of unfair competition; the right to a particular mark grows out of its use, not its mere adoption”
- laches period of nearly 30 years
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Pitney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.