Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Meccano, Limited, v. John Wanamaker, New York

• 1919 • 253 U.S. 136 • White Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Meccano, Limited v. John Wanamaker, New York in 1919 revolved around a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition. British company Meccano Ltd., known for their construction toys, sued American department store John Wanamaker for selling similar products under the name "American Meccano". The court ruled in favor of Meccano Ltd., stating that even though the term 'Meccano' was not registered as a trademark in the United States at that time, it had...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1919
Docket: 187
253 U.S. 136
40 S. Ct. 463
64 L. Ed. 822
1920 U.S. LEXIS 1455
Argued: Jan 26, 1920

Meccano, Limited, v. John Wanamaker, New York

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Meccano, Limited v. John Wanamaker, New York in 1919 revolved around a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition. British company Meccano Ltd., known for their construction toys, sued American department store John Wanamaker for selling similar products under the name "American Meccano". The court ruled in favor of Meccano Ltd., stating that even though the term 'Meccano' was not registered as a trademark in the United States at that time, it had acquired secondary meaning due to its extensive use and advertising by the plaintiff both domestically and internationally. Therefore, using this name could potentially mislead customers into thinking they were buying genuine 'Meccanos'. This decision set an important precedent regarding international trademarks and protection against unfair competition.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Meccano, Limited v. John Wanamaker, New York (1919), Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tariff on imported toys was incorrect because it relied too heavily on an overly literal interpretation of the law. He contended that while Meccano's products could technically be classified as "toys," they were primarily educational tools designed to teach children about engineering and mechanics. As such, he believed they should have been exempt from tariffs under existing laws which excluded educational materials from import duties. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues for failing to consider the broader implications of their ruling and warned that it would set a dangerous precedent by allowing customs officials to impose tariffs based purely on their own subjective interpretations of what constitutes a toy.

Opinion written by Justice JCMcReynolds
Decided: May 17, 1920
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms