Case Name: VOGUE CO. v. THOMPSON-HUSTON CO.
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-08-02
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 220
Docket Number: No. 4066
Parties: VOGUE CO. v. THOMPSON-HUSTON CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 220–220

Head Matter:
No. 338
VOGUE CO. v. THOMPSON-HUSTON CO.
U. S. Dist. Court.
No. 4066.
Decided Aug. 2, 1924.
1181. TRA DE-MARKS—Use of word “Vogue” and the letter “V”, or the “V-Girl,” as the dominating feature of a label, held to be unfair competition with magazine published under that name.
1206. UNFAIR COMPETITION—is nothing but a convenient name for the doctrine that no one should be allowed to sell his goods as those of another.
Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
Attorneys—Harry D. Nims, New York City, for Vogue Co.; Samuel W. Banning, of Chicago, for Thompson-Hudson Co.

Opinion:
DENNISON, C. J.
Epitomized Opinion
Action for an injunction against the use of the name "Vogue" and the letter "V" carrying between its sides the figure of a woman, which mark is called the "V-Girl", all of which have been displayed constantly on magazine of plaintiff which assumes to be an interpreter of and authority on styles and woman's wear. In 1912 the Vogue Hat Co. used the above label, on hats manufactured by it and put on sale by retailers throughout the country, of which the defendant is one.
The lower court dismissed the petition on the grounds that there was no competition between the publishing of the magazine and manufacture of hats, and that there was no infringement of trade-mark because magazines and hats are not articles of "same descriptive qualities." On appeal the Circuit Court held:
1. "Unfair competition" is nothing but a convenient name of doctrine that no one should be allowed to sell his goods as those of another.
2. In this case there is injury to plaintiff and fraud upon consumer; nothing else is needed.
3. The plaintiff is entitled to further use of the "V-Girl" or the "V", not in its ordinary use as a capital letter, but as the dominating feature of the label.
4. There is no satisfactory basis for an accounting against either the manufacturer or retailer for profits or damages.
The decree dismissing the bill is vacated and the case remanded. •