U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1915

Diamond Crystal Salt Co. v. Worcester Salt Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided February 9, 1915 · Ward

221 F. 66; 137 C.C.A. 16; 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1295

Counsel

Archibald Cox and Robert W. Byerly, both of New York City, for complainant., Bassett, Thompson & Gilpatric, of New York City (Edward M. Bassett and Wilson W. Thompson, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Mulhens & Kropff, Inc. v. Ferd. Muelhens, Inc. (2d Cir. 1930)
F. W. Dodge Corp. v. Comstock (New York Supreme Court 1931)
American Thermos Bottle Co. v. W. T. Grant Co. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1922)
Medical Fabrics Co. v. DC McLintock Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Holland v. C. & A. IMPORT CORPORATION (District Court, S.D. New York 1934)
Mulhens A. Kropff, Inc. v. Ferd Muelhens, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1929)
In re Samuels (2d Cir. 1918)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

WARD, Circuit Judge.

[1] We do not think it necessary to add much to the careful opinion of -Judge Learned Hand in this case. It makes no difference what the word “Shaker” in connection with salt originally meant; that is, whether is was salt to be used in a shaker or salt made by the religious sect known as Shakers. It is a descriptive word, which has been shown to have obtained a secondary meaning as salt made by the complainant.

[2] We do not agree that protection of this trade-name shall be restricted, as it has been by the decree of the court below, to that part of the United States north of the thirty-eighth parallel and east of the *67102d meridian. There have been cases where a trade-name has been protected only in limited territory, but the proofs show that the salt business of both parties to this suit is nation-wide.

[3] Although there is no decision of the Supreme Court giving to a complainant who has been guilty of untrue or misleading advertising a locus penitentiae, as has been given to the complainant, there are some decisions in the lower courts to this effect. Moxie Case (C. C.) 153 Fed. 487; W. A. Gaines & Co. v. Turner-Looker Co., 204 Fed. 553, 123 C. C. A. 79. There is in this case no untruthfulness or deception in the name itself, but only in part of the complainant’s advertising. We think it entirely equitable that the bill should be dismissed, not absolutely, but without prejudice to the right of the complainant hereafter to file a new bill, if it shall have shown that all untruthful advertising to the effect that its salt is absolutely pure and free from any gypsum has been abandoned.

The decree, modified by striking out the territorial limitation, is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.