Case Name: WARNER BROS. CO. v. WIENER
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1914-04-28
Citations: 214 F. 30
Docket Number: No. 271
Parties: WARNER BROS. CO. v. WIENER.
Judges: Before DACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 214
Pages: 30–32

Head Matter:
WARNER BROS. CO. v. WIENER.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 28, 1914.)
No. 271.
1. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 59 ) — Infringement—Names.
The use by defendant, in connection with the sale of corsets, of his name, “Wiener’s,” printed in heavy black letters, was not an infringement of plaintiff’s registered trade-mark, consisting of the name “Warner’s,” printed in heavy black script; and hence, where defendant was enjoined from using his name, printed in script or any type so nearly resembling the style of type employed in plaintiff’s trade-mark as might be calculated to deceive, the court did not err in refusing to also enjoin him from using his name in any style of type unless accompanied by his given name.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. §§ 68-72; Dec. Dig. § 59
Right to use one’s own name as trade-name, see notes to R. W. Rogers Co. v. Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co., 17 C. C. A. 579; Kathreiner’s Malzkaffee Fabriken Mit Beschraenkter Haftung v. Pastor Kneipp Medicine Co., 27 C. C. A. 357; Borden Ice Cream Co. v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 121 C. C. A. 205.]
2. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 73 ) — Unfair Competition — Right to Use Name.
Unfair competition cannot be predicated on the use of a name which defendant has a perfect right to use.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 84; Dee. Dig. § 73.
Unfair competition in use of trade-mark or trade-name, see notes to Scheuer v. Muller, 20 C. C. A. 165; Lare v. Harper & Bros., 30 C. C. A. 376.]
Lacombe, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
' Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
On appeal from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York which granted a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from selling or offering for sale corsets having thereon, or on the boxes containing the same, the name “Wiener’s” printed in the style of type shown in complainant’s registered trademark “Warner’s” or in any such near resemblance thereto as might be calculated to deceive. The order concludes as follows:
“The motion is denied in so far as it asks that the defendant be restrained from using the name Wiener’s’ in connection with the sale of corsets, irrespective of the style of type in which said name is printed unless the name is accompanied by the defendant’s given name ‘David.’”
The error assigned is that the court erred in refusing to grant an injunction restraining the defendant from using his name in connection with the sale of corsets irrespective of the style of type in which the said name is printed unless accompanied by the name “David.”
Seabury C. Mastick, of New York City, for appellant.
John Bogart and Isidore Weckstein, both of New York City, for appellee.
Before DACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to-date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
COXE, Circuit Judge.
The complainant moved in the District Court for a preliminary injunction restraining-the-defendant from using his name in connection with the sale of corsets which the complainant contends infringes its registered trade-mark. This trade-mark consists of the name "Warner's" printed in heavy black script. The defendant printed his name in similar black script in such a way that a purchaser might easily mistake it for that of the complainant. Both parties are engaged in selling corsets. The District Court enjoined the defendant from using his name printed in script and said in its opinion that the defendant must not use script "but must use plain type not similar to the script used by Warner."
This is exactly what the defendant has done. He now prints on his boxes in heavy black letters his name WIENER. It is this use of his name which the complainant seeks to enjoin. We think there is no merit in this contention. The defendant's name is Wiener, he is a corset maker, he has a right to make corsets and to use his own name in the business. The name as now used by him is as different from the name "Warner's," as it appears in the trade-mark, as it well can be. Assuming that he has a right to do business in his own name he could hardly differentiate the names more clearly. His name is not printed in script but in heavy black print and the only resemblance between the two names is the inherent similarity between the names Warner and Wiener. There is, therefore, no infringement of the trade-mark. Of course, unfair competition cannot be predicated of the use of a name which the defendant has a perfect right to use.
The order is affirmed.