United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.
248 U.S. 90 (1918)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90 (1918)

United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company

No. 27

Argued March 12, 13, 1918

Decided December 9, 1918

248 U.S. 90

Syllabus

A right of trademark is not a right in gross; it exists only as appurtenant to an established business, and for the protection of the goodwill thereof. P. 248 U. S. 97.

The adoption of a trademark does not project the right of protection in advance of the extension of the trade. P. 248 U. S. 98.

Where A had a trademark in Massachusetts in connection with a business there and in neighboring states, and B afterwards, in good faith, without notice of A's use or intent to injure or forestall A, adopted the same mark in Kentucky, where A's business theretofore had not extended, and built up a valuable business under it there, held that A, upon entering B's field with notice of the situation, had no equity to enjoin B as an infringer, but was estopped. P. 248 U. S. html#103">248 U. S. 103.

226 F. 545 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 248 U. S. 93

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.