Case ID: f_148/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DWINELL-WRIGHT CO. v. CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY CO. et al.
    (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
    October 27, 1906.)
    No. 17.
    1. Tbade-Mabks and Tbade-Names.
    The name “White House” and the picture of the White House at Wash- . Ington constitute a valid trade-mark and trade-name for coffees.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent Dig. vol. 46, Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, §§ 1, 12.]
    2. Same — Pbeliminaby Injunction.
    Where plaintiff claims that defendant has violated its trade-mark and trade-name, a preliminary Injunction will issue, though defendant before suit brought has partly modified its carton so as to remove the more objectionable features.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases In point see' Cent Dig. vol. 46, Trade-Names and Trade-Names, § 108.]
    In Equity.
    The plaintiff’s bill claims the exclusive right, by continuous usage from 1890 until the present time, to the use of the trade-name “White House Coffee” and the trade-mark of a picture of the White House at Washington upon the carton of the package in which its coffee is sold. Affidavits were filed with the bill in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction. A counter affidavit was filed by the defendants, in which the defendants admitted having used a carton for the sale of this coffee on which a picture of the White House and the words “White House Coffee’’ were found. The counter affidavit further averred That, upon receipt of notice from the plaintiff of its claims, and prior to the commencement of suit, it luid abandoned the picture of the White House and the use of the words “White House Coffee,” and had thereafter sold its coffee in packages inclosed in carton in which neither the name nor the picture of the White House appeared. It was argued by defendants’ counsel that their original carton, owing to sundry differences, would not mislead a person who wanted to buy the plaintiff’s coffee; and further that, at any rate, the defendants’ carton as now used did not interfere with the plaintiff’s property rights.
    Reynolds D. Brown and George L,. Huntress, for plaintiff.
    I. H. Mirkil, for defendants.
   PER CURIAM.

A preliminary injunction should issue in the language of the bill to preserve the status quo until final hearing; the court, however, reserving the question of the propriety of the changed form of carton and the words and pictures thereon, alleged by the defendants to be now used by them.