Case Name: BENJAMIN MOORE & CO. v. AUWELL
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-04-18
Citations: 178 F. 543
Docket Number: No. 171
Parties: BENJAMIN MOORE & CO. v. AUWELL.
Judges: Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 178
Pages: 543–545

Head Matter:
BENJAMIN MOORE & CO. v. AUWELL.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 18, 1910.)
No. 171.
Teadb -Marks and Tbade-Names (§ 75 ) — TJndawfui, Competition — Deception op Public.
Complainant sold a wall covering under the name “Muresco.” Defendant. sold a similar material under the name “Murafrescothe name being arrived at by shortening an older trade-name, “Muralofresco,” used by others commercially before defendant had anything to do with the article. Held, not to constitute actionable unlawful competition; there being evidence that the public bad not been deceived, and none to the contrary.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 86: Dec. Dig. § 75.
Unfair competition see notes to Scheuer v. Muller, 20 C. C. A. 165; Dare v. Harper & Bros., 80 C. C. A. 376.]
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
Suit by Benjamin Moore & Co., a corporation, against Bouis C. Auwell. Decree for defendant (172 Fed. 508), and complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Edwards, Sager & Wooster, for appellant.
Edward C. Davidson, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § Number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1⅛07 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
WARD,, Circuit Judge.
The bill alleges infringement of a registered trade-mark and also unfair competition. The trade-mark is a fouled anchor with the words "Muresco" and "Moore's Muresco" in connection with it. There is absolutely no imitation of this trade-mark. The only ground of unfair competition is the use of the word "Murafres-co"; there being no effort to make the defendant's packages resemble the complainant's or to pass off his goods as theirs. The name "Mura-fresco" was quite naturally arrived at, by shortening the older trade-name "Muralofresco," by other parties before the defendant had anything to do with the article, and had been used commercially for three or four years before this suit wa¡s brought. There is no proof that the public is deceived, the evidence being to the contrary. The resemblance between the words is so great as to make the case a close one, and evidence of bad faith on the defendant's part or of confusion on the part of the public would incline us to enjoin its use. Consideration of all the facts, however, causes us to concur with the trial judge.
The judgment is affirmed.