From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Landith Laboratories v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 4, 1940
35 F. Supp. 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Opinion

October 4, 1940.

Phillips, Mahoney Fielding, of New York City (Jeremiah T. Mahoney and Richard L. Deely, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Cooper, Kerr Dunham, of New York City (Mason Trowbridge, of Jersey City, N.J., and Thomas J. Byrne, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.


This case is too doubtful to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction. There are numerous instances of the use of the word "Cue" and the letter "Q" as trademarks for different products. The most, therefore, that the plaintiff can hope to protect is its right to use the mark on its particular products. Pabst Brewing Co. v. Decatur Brewing Co., 7 Cir., 284 F. 110; Anheuser-Busch v. Budweiser Malt Products Corp., 2 Cir., 295 F. 306; France Milling Co. v. Washburn-Crosby Co., 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 268 U.S. 706, 45 S.Ct. 640, 69 L.Ed. 1168. These products are different in character from the defendant's liquid dentifrice. Moreover, the facts are in dispute, and there is no showing of injury to the plaintiff.

The motion of the plaintiff for a preliminary injunction is denied.


Summaries of

Landith Laboratories v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 4, 1940
35 F. Supp. 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)
Case details for

Landith Laboratories v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.

Case Details

Full title:LANDITH LABORATORIES, Inc., v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 4, 1940

Citations

35 F. Supp. 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Citing Cases

Cue Publishing Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

In any event, Colgate protected and sustained its right to the "Cue" mark in accordance with the State and…