From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pennzoil Co. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 21, 1944
140 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1944)

Opinion

No. 5206.

January 21, 1944.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore; W. Calvin Chesnut, Judge.

Action by the Pennzoil Company, a corporation of California, and the Pennzoil Company, a corporation of Pennsylvania, against Crown Central Petroleum Corporation for trade-mark infringement. From a judgment for defendant, 50 F. Supp. 891, the plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

John S. Powers, of Buffalo, N.Y. (Joseph W. Milburn, of Washington, D.C., and Ritchie, Janney, Ober Williams and Southgate L. Morison, all of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.

Edward G. Fenwick, of Washington, D.C. (Karl F. Steinmann and Edwin H. Brownley, both of Baltimore, Md., on the brief) for appellee.

Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal in a trademark infringement suit, in which the District Court held that the plaintiff's trademark "Pennzoil" was not infringed by the use of the word "Greenzoil" as a trademark for one of its products. We have given careful consideration to the briefs and arguments and are of opinion that the decision of the District Court was correct and that nothing need be added to what was said in its opinion. That opinion is accordingly adopted as the opinion of this court.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Pennzoil Co. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 21, 1944
140 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1944)
Case details for

Pennzoil Co. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp.

Case Details

Full title:PENNZOIL CO. et al. v. CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jan 21, 1944

Citations

140 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1944)

Citing Cases

Miller Brewing Co v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries

o., 55 U.S.App.D.C. 146, 3 F.2d 87 (1924) ("Eta" denied registration because of likelihood of confusion with…

G.D. Searle Co. v. Chas. Pfizer Co.

Defendant cites a number of cases where the trademarks involved had similar suffixes but dissimilar prefixes…