Hunter Law Office | Dallas, Texas
  • Home
  • Legal Blog
  • FAQ

Legal News & Opinion

How Aunt Jemima Fundamentally Changed Trade-mark Law.

6/18/2012

 
The story takes place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  During that time, R.T. Davis purchased a struggling milling company that produced a ready-made pancake mix with the image of a black woman in an apron and handkerchief on the box.

To market his newly acquired pancake mix, Davis hired Nancy Green, a former slave, to dress and play the part of Aunt Jemima at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago.  Wearing the now iconic apron and handkerchief, Aunt Jemima served those famous pancakes from her booth at the Colombian Exposition.

Read More for the whole story.
Over the following years, the Jemima brand grew quickly in popularity and recognizability.  So much so, in fact, that Davis changed the name of his company to the Aunt Jemima Mills Company and other businesses began using the name and image to promote their own products.  Now, here is where trade-mark law comes into play.

You see, one of these businesses was Rigney and Company, which was making not a pancake mix, but a syrup.  The District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dismissing Aunt Jemima Mills’ case, explained that trade-mark law provided protection when the trade-mark was being used to market a competing product, but not a complimentary product as was the case here with the syrup.

The Court also held that where the Petitioner could not show damages, the fact that consumers were deceived by defendant’s unfair trade practices was not grounds for relief.  The Court also held that, even though Rigney and Co. might sell an inferior product which would harm the good reputation of the Aunt Jemima Mills Company,  that too was not grounds for relief.  The Court was also not concerned that Rigney and Co. was unfairly benefiting from Aunt Jemima’s extensive (and expensive) advertising campaign.

And then came the appeal.  And “The Aunt Jemima Doctrine” was born.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Learned Hand dissenting, reversed the lower court.  The Court held, “To use precisely the same mark, as the defendants have done, is, in our opinion, evidence of intention to make something out of it- either to get the benefit of the complainant’s reputation or of its advertisement or to forestall the extension of its trade. There is no other conceivable reason why they should have appropriated this precise mark. The taking being wrongful, we think the defendants have no equity to protect them against an injunction, … .”  Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co., 247 F. 407, 409 (2nd Cir. 1917).  The Court goes on to say, “Obviously the public, or a large part of it, seeing this trade-mark on a syrup, would conclude that it was made by the complainant. … In this way the complainant’s reputation is put in the hands of the defendants. It will enable them to get the benefit of the complainant’s reputation and advertisement. These we think are property rights which should be protected in equity.” Id. at 410.

In other words, Rigney had wrongly appropriated Aunt Jemima’s trade-mark, unjustly benefiting from the time, effort, and expense that Aunt Jemima Mills used to build the brand and reputation, and potentially harming Aunt Jemima Mills by damaging that reputation (good-will) or preventing Aunt Jemima from extending into the syrup market which it might foreseeably want to do.  That was enough to justify an injunction preventing Rigney from using the Aunt Jemima trade-mark.

I don’t see, in a quick review of the opinion, anything suggesting that public confusion alone would be grounds for an injunction.  It appears that the emphasis here is on protecting the business rather than the consumer.

Via: Mental Floss  
Caselaw: In District Court, 234 F. 804  |  And on Appeal, 247 F. 407
Back To Blog Home

      


Comments are closed.
     
    NOT LEGAL ADVICE. 


    Nothing on this website is legal advice. The information on this site is general in nature and might not apply to your individual situation.

    We Recommend:

    Liberty Law Blog
    Online Library of Liberty

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Automobiles
    Consider This
    Constitutional Law
    Contracts
    Convention Of States
    Defamation
    Divorce
    DTPA
    Family Law
    Gun Law
    Intellectual Property
    Legal Potpourri
    Legislation
    Marriage
    Negligence
    Opinion
    Personal Injury
    Politics
    Practical Series
    Property Disputes
    Real Estate Law
    Who Said It?

    Archives

    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    July 2014
    September 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012

dallas locations

What People Are Saying

connect with Us

Get Our Newsletter
Serving Dallas and North Texas including the Park Cities, Highland Park, University Park, Preston Hollow, Lake Highlands, Lakewood, Addison, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, Richardson, Garland, Rowlett, and Rockwall. 

​Copyright © 2013 - 2019 Law Office of Henry Wyche Hunter.  All Rights Reserved. Website content approved by Henry Wyche Hunter, Principal Attorney.

  • Home
  • Legal Blog
  • FAQ