Case Name: THOMAS J. LIPTON, Inc. v. LERMAN et al.
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1951-07-14
Citations: 107 F. Supp. 835
Docket Number: Civ. A. 4378-49
Parties: THOMAS J. LIPTON, Inc. v. LERMAN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 107
Pages: 835–835

Head Matter:
THOMAS J. LIPTON, Inc. v. LERMAN et al.
Civ. A. 4378-49.
United States District Court D. Columbia.
July 14, 1951.
David W. Louisell, Samuel Spencer, Frank S. Ketcham, Frank J. Whalen, Jr., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Herbert J. Jacobi, Washington, D. C., for defendants.

Opinion:
McGUIRE, District Judge.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Counterclaim dismissed.
.Defendants have established no common law mark, since that used by them has acquired no secondary meaning and is purely descriptive. I doubt further that it could acquire a secondary meaning in the sense that term has been defined by the Supreme Court. Apart from that, the defendants have failed it would seem to actively merchandise the product for at least the last three years.
Counsel will prepare proper order.