Chamberlin

Chamberlin v. Clark Bros.

Good Law
96 F. Supp. 498·89 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 49·1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2480
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 30, 1951No. 11895California1,103 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Yankwich, J.

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

Upon the grounds set forth in the Comment to follow, judgment will be for the defendants that the plaintiff take nothing by the Third Amended Complaint. No attorney’s fees are allowed, each side to pay its own costs.

Findings and judgment to be prepared by counsel for defendants.

Comment

The action is for infringement of Letters Patent No. 2,236,053, issued on March 25, 1941, to a golf bag cart, seeking injunction, damages and an accounting.

The Complaint also contains a claim for unfair competition and seeks to prevent the use of the tradename “Kaddie Kart” or “K-Kart” as a designation for a golf bag cart, although this claim is not separately stated. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 8(e) (2), 28 U.S.C.A.

We dispose of this last matter by stating that no registered mark is involved. It is doubtful if the combination of the two words, either in their original form, or in their misspelled or corrupted form could be registered. Restatement, Torts, Secs. 721, 725. And there is no evidence in the record from which any inference can be drawn that the use of either of these names…

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.