Court Opinion

ID: 9751260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:17:22.60341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:41.385222
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Williamson, J.
I would sustain the exceptions. The position of the Green Giant Company as I understand it is this: A can of peas with certain letters and numbers imprinted on the bottom portion and encircled with a label bearing the defendant’s registered trademark and its name as the distributor, and in no way distinguishable- to the purchaser or consumer from the defendant’s product, is not evidence in itself sufficient to prove that the particular can was distributed by the defendant.
Day in and day out every one of us accepts the label on canned food products as sufficient ■ proof of the brand and the producer or distributor. How else can we identify as a *289practical matter types and brands of canned food products ? We are urged by every method of publicity to purchase “brand” products by the label.. Further, it is common knowledge that the misuse of a trademark and the misbranding of food products are serious offenses under Federal laws designed to protect all concerned from producer to consumer.
There is of course the possibility of substitution or imitation. This risk must be small indeed in a business which has gained the confidence of the consuming public through the use of distinctive labels.
Surely we may assume that the defendant does in fact distribute a product of the type described in the label. If this were not so, it could readily have disposed of the case. There is no suggestion by the defendant that such is not the fact. There are imprinted on the bottom portion of the can certain letters and numbers, e.g., “A C f C 5” “3 L Y.” They have no meaning to the purchaser. A distributor can readily tell us whether they identify its own product.
Apart from the question of proof of the fact of distribution, there is no objection by the defendant to the sufficiency of the evidence on the other issues in the case. In my opinion the can and label should have been admitted in evidence and the case submitted to the jury.