Opinion ID: 1501711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Principles of Law Applicable.

Text: The test of identity is not whether, when goods are placed side by side, a difference can be recognized in the labels or marks; but the test is, when such goods are not placed side by side, would an ordinarily prudent purchaser be liable to purchase the one, believing that he was purchasing the other. McDonald & Morrison Mfg. Co. v. H. Mueller Mfg. Co., 183 F. 972, 974. As stated in the case of Juvenile Shoe Company v. Federal Trade Commission (C. C.A.9) 289 F. 57, 59: Injunction will lie against a corporation that by any artifice deceives the public into believing that its goods are those of another corporation having a similar name; and this is true irrespective of any intent to mislead the public, and especially is it true where the corporations are engaged in the same business. See, also, American Products Company v. American Products Company (D.C.) 42 F. (2d) 488, 490. In Chesebrough Manufacturing Co. v. Old Gold Chemical Co., Inc. (C.C.A.9) 70 F.(2d) 383, 385, the court stated: We are likewise of opinion that the label of appellee so closely resembles appellant's label as to lead to confusion and deception. It is true that appellee places on its article distinguishing marks by which it could be identified by a careful and discriminating purchaser, but this is not enough, for it is the casual or ordinary purchaser who must be protected, and as to him the test is general appearance. The Circuit Court in the Seventh Circuit expressed itself in similar language in the case of Northam Warren Corporation v. Universal Cosmetic Co., 18 F.(2d) 774, 775: Whether there is an infringement of a trade-mark does not depend upon the use of identical words, nor on the question as to whether they are so similar that a person looking at one would be deceived into the belief that it was the other; but it is sufficient if one adopts a trade-name or a trade-mark so like another in form, spelling, or sound, that one with a not very definite or clear recollection as to the real trade-mark, is likely to become confused or misled. Memory comparison is all that is necessary. In Queen Manufacturing Co. v. Isaac Ginsberg & Bros., Inc. (C.C.A.) 25 F.(2d) 284, 287, a similar holding is found. It would appear that defendant was laboring under the mistaken idea that registration of his label under the Copyright Act of 1874 (18 Stats. 78) determined his right to its use. Of course, such registration does not immunize him from such attacks upon his use of the copyrighted name as are contained in the complaint filed in this cause.