Yale Electric Corporation v. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents, et al.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
26 F.2d 972 (1928)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A trademark owner has a sufficient economic interest in their mark to prevent its use by another on different, non-competing goods if the goods are related enough to likely cause consumer confusion as to their source or origin. The use is unlawful unless the borrower's goods are so foreign to the owner's as to ensure against any identification of the two.

Facts:

The plaintiff manufactured and sold flashlights and batteries.
The plaintiff began using the word 'Yale' as a trademark on its products.
The defendant was a well-known company that had long used the 'Yale' trademark on its own products, primarily locks.
The defendant did not manufacture or sell flashlights or batteries.
The plaintiff sought to obtain a federal registration for the 'Yale' trademark for its flashlights and batteries.
Evidence presented showed that consumers of the plaintiff's flashlights either were, or were likely to be, confused into believing the flashlights were a product of the defendant company.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff, a flashlight manufacturer, applied to the U.S. Patent Office to register the trademark 'Yale' for its products.
The defendant, the owner of the 'Yale' mark for locks, opposed the registration.
The Patent Office examiner and subsequently the Commissioner of Patents both denied the registration on the grounds that 'Yale' was a proper name.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, but did so on the grounds that there was a likelihood of confusion between the goods.
The plaintiff then filed this action in the U.S. District Court to compel the Commissioner to register the mark.
The District Court took new evidence, also found a likelihood of confusion, and dismissed the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trademark owner's right to oppose the registration and use of their mark by another extend to goods that are not of the 'same descriptive properties' in a literal sense, but are similar enough that the public might mistakenly associate them with the original trademark owner?

Opinions:

Majority - L. Hand

Yes. A trademark owner's right to protect its mark extends beyond its specific product line to encompass other goods where a likelihood of confusion exists. The court found that a trademark owner's reputation is a valuable asset, and allowing another to use the mark, even on non-competing goods, 'borrows the owner’s reputation, whose quality no longer lies within his own control.' This borrowing is an injury in itself. The statutory requirement that goods be of the 'same descriptive properties' should not be interpreted literally; rather, it should be understood through the lens of common law unfair competition principles. The true test is whether the goods are so disparate as to 'insure against confusion.' To allow the registration of a mark whose use could be immediately enjoined under unfair competition law would be a 'fatuity,' thus the trademark act and common law must be read harmoniously.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision that significantly expanded the scope of trademark protection from merely preventing confusion between identical products to preventing confusion between related but non-competing goods. It championed the 'Aunt Jemima doctrine,' focusing on the owner's interest in protecting their goodwill and reputation from being associated with products they do not control. Judge Hand's flexible interpretation of the statutory phrase 'same descriptive properties' shifted the focus toward a practical, consumer-centric 'likelihood of confusion' analysis, which has become central to modern trademark law and paved the way for the concept of trademark dilution.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Yale Electric Corporation v. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents, et al. (1928)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature