Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO. v. TRIANGLE MECH. LABS.

DISTRICT COURT, E.D. NEW YORK


June 28, 1933

GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO.
v.
TRIANGLE MECHANICAL LABORATORIES CORPORATION et al.

Settlement of Decree.

Plaintiff is entitled to a practical injunction. Oneida, etc., v. Oneida Game Trap. Co., 168 App. Div. 769, 154 N.Y.S. 391, at page 399; Barton v. Rex-Oil Co. (C.C.A.) 29 F.2d 474 (re-hearing). There is no inconsistency between the decree and the decision. For though the proof of secondary meaning may be insufficient (see trade marks), the right, on the facts of this case, to protection from unfair competition is clear. Edward G. Budd, etc., Co. v. C.R. Wilson, etc. Co. (D.C.) 7 F.2d 746, at page 749, affirmed (C.C.A.) 21 F.2d 803; Thum Co. v. Dickinson (C.C.A.) 245 F. 609, at page 627.

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed:

That the defendant Triangle Mechanical Laboratories Corporation, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, and the defendants Jacob Holtz and Abraham L. Holtz, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons holding by, through, or under each and all of said defendants, be and the same are each and all perpetually enjoined and restrained:

 (a) From using, authorizing the use of, or knowingly selling razor blades to others who use, the coupon, a copy of which is attached below, *fn1" or any coupon colorably similar thereto, or other coupon, advertisement, or other selling device calculated to cause razor blades not of plaintiff's manufacture to be passed off as and for plaintiff's blades.

 (b) From using, authorizing others to use, or knowingly selling razor blades to others who use, the word "Blue" and the word "Blade" in juxtaposition; provided, however, that defendants are not hereby precluded from otherwise using the word "blue" to describe their blades as colored blue or oxidized blue in a manner not calculated to cause such blades to be passed off under the distinctive term "Blue Blades."

 (c) The defendants may sell blades and packages colored blue, but are enjoined from placing or causing to be placed in the hands of retail dealers, jobbers, or others blue safety razor blades so packed as to reasonably suggest or facilitate a substitution as and for Gillette Blue Blades and likely to be in the hands of such dealers and others an instrument of fraud on the plaintiff or which are colorable imitations on the package of plaintiff. Both the packages and blades must bear the full name of the manufacturer in letters readily discernible by the public and as large as the blade and the package reasonably may permit, bearing in mind that the purpose of the same is to prevent the public from thinking that they are getting plaintiff's product and to prevent them from being known or designated or substituted or passed off as and for plaintiff's product.

 (d) From any use of the name Gillette in connection with the sale of double edge safety razor blades.

 (e) From passing off, or inducing or enabling others to pass off, any merchandise not the plaintiff's product as and for plaintiff's product, and from any other acts calculated to cause purchasers to believe that defendants' merchandise is the merchandise of the plaintiff, and from otherwise in any manner whatever unfairly competing with the plaintiff.

 And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff have judgment for costs against the defendants for the sum of $623.70 as taxed by the clerk of this court, and that the plaintiff have execution therefor. Half to be paid by each defendant.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.