Case Name: The WARNER BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JANTZEN, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1957-11-12
Citations: 249 F.2d 353
Docket Number: No. 42, Docket 24567
Parties: The WARNER BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JANTZEN, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 249
Pages: 353–356

Head Matter:
The WARNER BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JANTZEN, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 42, Docket 24567.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 10, 1957.
Decided Nov. 12, 1957.
Harry R. Pugh, Jr., New York City (E. Cummings Sanborn and Donald E. Deg-ling, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Harry Cohen, of Levisohn, Niner & Cohen, New York City (Edwin Levisohn, of Levisohn, Niner & Cohen, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff asks too much in seeking a private monopoly in the common word "allure" as applied to certain articles of feminine adornment and apparel. As the court found on competent evidence, this word or coined words derived therefrom "have, for a long period of years, been utilized as advertising for various types of feminine accoutrements such as girdles, bust pads, hosiery, swim suits, coats, sweaters, dresses, skirts, undergarments and the like, by both the de-
fendant and other manufacturers." 150 F.Supp. 531, 533. Plaintiff relies on a trade-mark registered in 1932-33, but even then it betrayed some weakness in finding it necessary to embellish the common word to contrive the more fanciful "A'Lure" as the mark for its brassieres. But in so crowded a field of competitive advertising as that for the trade in women's goods, where rival claims are pressed continuously without let or pause over the air and through the printed page, it is not conceivable that consumers lack awareness of the existence of the trade rivalry involved. Nor, we apprehend, are there buyers still so naive as to regard the quite differing "A'Lure" and "Curvallure" brassieres as inevitably the product of a single manufacturer, even without the added factor found that defendant did not use its coined word alone, but always joined it with its own widely known trade-mark consisting of the name "Jantzen" and a representation of a diving girl. Insistent American advertising, whatever its faults, has surely induced a certain degree of sophistication and wariness in us all. Accordingly we agree with Judge Cashin's conclusion of noninfringement and accept his convincing opinion, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 150 F.Supp. 531, 533-534, as our own.
Affirmed.