Case Name: GRIGGS-COOPER CO. v. U. S. PRINT. & LITH. CO.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-06-01
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 548
Docket Number: No. 2913
Parties: GRIGGS-COOPER CO. v. U. S. PRINT. & LITH. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
GRIGGS-COOPER CO. v. U. S. PRINT. & LITH. CO.
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
No. 2913.
Decided June 1, 1926
Attorneys — Murphy, Bradford and Cummins & Cobb, Howard & Bailey for Griggs-Cooper Co.; Miller Outcalt & W. F. Murray for Printing Co.; all of Cincinnati.

Opinion:
HAMILTON, J.
The Hamilton Common Pleas granted a decree in favor of the Griggs-Cooper and Company; enjoining the U. S. Printing and Lithographing Co. from publishing or selling labels for grocery commodities upon which labels the word "Home" appears.
The Griggs-Cooper Co. is engaged in the manufacture of groceries and sells same throughout the United States. It uses and owns the trade mark "Home Brand" for various descriptions of its goods. It was claimed that the labels printed by the Lithographing Co. which contained the word "Home" were sufficiently similar to its brand as to result in confusion and mistake; and constitutes an infringement upon the right in said trade mark. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held:
1. At first glance, this court would be constrained to hold that the word "Home" is a generic term and, as such, could not be appropriated as a trade mark because of a too comprehensive meaning to become the monopoly of an individual application of merchandise.
2. Federal Courts have uniformly held the word "Home" not to be generic in it nature and have upheld trade marks, the essential word of which was "Home".
3. The Lithographing Co. contends that if the plaintiff be entitled to an injunction, it should be limited to those states in which it has established the right by trade; and should not extend to all states of the United States.
4. It has always been recognized as a general rule, that a trade mark, unlike a patent, knows no territorial limitation. The right to a trade mark cannot be limited to any place, city, or state and therefore, must be deemed to extend everywhere.
5. By the weight of authority, the equities are in favor of the plaintiff and a perpetual injunction will be granted as prayed for.. Motioin to suspend injunction granted by the Common Pleas is overruled.
Decree accordingly.