Jones v. Roshenberger

5 Citing cases

  1. Westward Coach Mfg. Co. v. Ford Motor Co.

    388 F.2d 627 (7th Cir. 1968)   Cited 57 times
    Holding reverse confusion not actionable under Indiana law

    Therefore, we may consider the common law trademark infringement and unfair competition issues together. The Supreme and Appellate Courts of Indiana have held in a number of cases that the owner of a trademark or tradename is entitled to protection against the adoption and use by a competitor of the same or a similar mark or name. Smail v. Sanders, 118 Ind. 105, 20 N.E. 296 (1889); Keller v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 117 Ind. 556, 19 N.E. 196 (1888); Minas Furniture Co. v. Edward C. Minas Co., 96 Ind. App. 520, 165 N.E. 84 (1929); Jones v. Roshenberger, 82 Ind. App. 97, 144 N.E. 858 (1924); Hartzler v. Goshen Churn and Ladder Co., 55 Ind. App. 455, 104 N.E. 34 (1914); Computing Cheese Cutter Co. v. Dunn, 45 Ind. App. 20, 88 N.E. 93 (1909). The second user's adoption of the trademark or tradename in these cases suggested fraud.

  2. Horlick's Malted Milk v. Horluck's, Inc.

    51 F.2d 357 (W.D. Wash. 1931)   Cited 3 times
    Explaining that the plaintiff "cannot recover defendant's profits unless it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of willful fraud in the use of the enjoined trade-name"

    6 F. 307; Bunch v. United States (C.C.A.) 252 F. 673, 678; 21 Corpus Juris, 217; Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U.S. 157, 160, 24 L. Ed. 422; Faulder Co., Ltd. v. O. and G. Rushton, Ltd., 20 R.P.C. 477, 490; Weingarten Bros. v. Charles Bayer Co., 22 R.P.C. 341, 350; Sawyer v. Kellogg (C.C.) 9 F. 601, 602. Defendant cites Sharpless Company v. Lawrence (C.C.A.) 213 F. 423; Rubber Company v. Devoe et al. (D.C.) 233 F. 150; Prest-O-Lite v. Bournonville (D.C.) 260 F. 442; Rushmore v. Badger Company (C.C.A.) 198 F. 379; Matzger v. Vinikow (C.C.A.) 17 F.2d 581; Wrigley Company v. Larson Company (D.C.) 5 F.2d 731; Straus v. Notaseme Hosiery Company, 240 U.S. 179, 36 S. Ct. 288, 60 L. Ed. 590; Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Company, 179 U.S. 42, 21 S. Ct. 16, 45 L. Ed. 77; Fairbank Company v. Windsor (C.C.A.) 124 F. 200; Ammon Person v. Narragansett Company (D.C.) 254 F. 208; Pease v. Scott Company (D.C.) 5 F.2d 524; Globe-Wernicke Co. v. Safe-Cabinet Co., 110 Ohio St. 609, 144 N.E. 711; Jones v. Roshenberger, 82 Ind. App. 97, 144 N.E. 858; Dickey v. Mutual Film Corp., 186 App. Div. 701, 174 N.Y.S. 784; Ludington v. Leonard (C.C.A.) 127 F. 155; Keystone Foundry v. Portland Company (C.C.) 180 F. 301, 304; Gaines Co. v. Rock Spring Company (C.C.A.) 226 F. 531, 543; Peninsular Chemical Co. v. Levinson (C.C.A.) 247 F. 658; Southern Machinery Company v. Fay Stocking Co. (C.C.A.) 259 F. 243, 246; Ammon Person v. Narragansett Company (C.C.A.) 262 F. 880, 884; Marshall Company v. D'Arcy (C.C.A.) 280 F. 945; O'Sullivan Company v. Genuine Rubber Company (C.C.A.) 287 F. 134; I.T.S. Co. v. Tee Pee Rubber Co. (C.C.A.) 288 F. 794; Dickinson v. O. W. Thum Co. (C.C.A.) 8 F.2d 570; G. C. Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie (C.C.A.) 170 F. 167; Kessler Co. v. Goldstrom (C.C.A.) 177 F. 392; Reed Shoe Co. v. Frew (C.C.) 158 F. 552; Hennessy v. Wine Growers' Ass'n (D.C.) 212 F. 308; Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson Co. (C.C.A.) 300 F. 509; Rosenberg Bros. v. Elliott (C.C.A.) 7 F.2d 962; Rowley v. Rowley (C.C.A.) 18 F.2d 700; International Silver Compan

  3. Hammons Mobile Homes v. Laser Mobile Home

    501 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 22 times

    In an action for unfair competition, damages are appropriate only when the defendant's conduct was deliberate and willful. See Jones v. Roshenberger (1924), 82 Ind. App. 97, 101, 144 N.E. 858, 859; P. Goldstein, Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines 95 (2d ed. 1981); 74 Am.Jur.2d Trademarks and Tradenames § 149 (1974). In the trial court's order, it held that Carl "palm[ed] himself off to customers".

  4. Indiana State Fair Board v. Hockey Corp. of America

    165 Ind. App. 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    Prosser, Law of Torts, § 130 (4th ed. 1971). The court, in Jones v. Roshenberger, Admr. (1924), 82 Ind. App. 97, 99-100, 144 N.E. 858, defined it as follows: "Unfair competition consists in passing off or attempting to pass off upon the public, * * * the goods or business of another.

  5. Cooperider v. Clark

    205 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1965)

    If the action of the trial court in the case at bar is permitted to stand, it would in effect deprive the appellant of the right to question the venue of the action at any 4. time prior to a hearing of the application on the merits, for appellant would have waived her plea in abatement had she appeared at the trial and proceeded on the merits. Jones v. Roshenberger, Admr. (1924), 82 Ind. App. 97, 100, 144 N.E. 858; 1 Works', Indiana Practice (Lowe's Revision), § 15.21, p. 600. Appellee's theory is that ". . . the pleading filed by appellant was nothing more than a denial of one of the allegations of the petition . . ."