UNITED DRUG CO. V. THEODORE RECTANUS CO., 248 U. S. 90 (1918)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 248 U. S. 90
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/90/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/90/case.html
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. 103.
226 F.5d 5 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.