Fotre

Goodyear Rubber Co. v. Fotre

Good Law
95 F. Supp. 48·88 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 514·1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2565
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 19, 1951No. 11739California1,045 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Yankwich, J.

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

Judgment will be for the plaintiff enjoining the defendants from selling goods bearing the words “Gold Seal” or the representation of a seal or the word Goodyear in connection therewith or any other words or devices likely to cause purchasers or prospective purchasers to confuse defendants’ goods with those of the plaintiff. No damages. Costs to the -plaintiff.

Comment.

The action is for infringement of .trademark owned by the plaintiff. The trademark is “Gold Seal”, and consists of a representation of a serrated seal with the words “Gold Seal” in the center, the words Goodyear at the top, and the words Rubber Company at the bottom of the name, between concentric circles. The plaintiff has used the seal continuously on rubher boots, shoes, overshoes, rubbers or rubber footwear in interstate and foreign commerce for many years, dating back to prior to 1895.

The defendant has imitated the mark by using a similar mark consisting of an unserrated seal with the words “Gold Seal” in almost identically shaped letters and the words “Guaranteed Genuine” above, and the words “Goodyear Welts”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.