Hodenfield

The above-entitled cause heretofore tried, argued and submitted, is now decided as follows:

Judgment will be for the plaintiff for injunction only. Costs to the plaintiff. No attorneys’ fees.

Findings and judgment to be prepared by counsel for the plaintiff under Local Eule 7.

Comment

The issue in the case is rather simple. The plaintiff’s trade-mark “Oxolin” is a valid fanciful mark. It was coined many years ago by the plaintiff, and does not refer to the appearance, composition or quality of the paint to which it is applied. Therefore it is a distinctive mark which, under Sunbeam Lighting Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 9 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 969, 972-973 , is entitled to broad protection both as a trade-mark and trade name. There is evidence in the record showing that in late years there has come into use and is found in *486 some dictionaries the chemical term “Oxalyn”, which is used either singly or in such combinations as Pyroxylin, and that at least one dictionary spells the word “Oxaline”. However, these facts do not affect the validity or call for the limitation of the use of the plaintiff’s mark. For these words designate chemical qualities unrelated to the coined word of the…