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

Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-distillers Corp.

• 1936 • 299 U.S. 183 • Hughes Court
In the case of Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiff, Old Dearborn Distributing Company, alleged that Seagram-Distillers Corporation had infringed upon its trademark rights by using similar labels for their products which caused confusion among consumers and resulted in loss of sales for Old Dearborn. The defendant argued that they were not liable as there...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 Hughes Court
Term: 1936
Docket: 226
299 U.S. 183
57 S. Ct. 139
81 L. Ed. 109
1936 U.S. LEXIS 20
Argued: Nov 12, 1936

Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-distillers Corp.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiff, Old Dearborn Distributing Company, alleged that Seagram-Distillers Corporation had infringed upon its trademark rights by using similar labels for their products which caused confusion among consumers and resulted in loss of sales for Old Dearborn. The defendant argued that they were not liable as there was no intent to deceive or cause confusion among customers. The court held in favor of the plaintiff stating that even without an intention to deceive or confuse customers, if such confusion is likely due to similarities between trademarks then it constitutes infringement under federal law. Furthermore, it was noted that protection against unfair competition extends beyond mere copying and includes any practice likely to mislead the public into buying one product under belief it is another.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of federal jurisdiction and constitutional law, which he believed should have led to a different outcome in this case. He contended that the plaintiff's claim arose under state law, not federal law, so it should not have been heard by a federal court in the first place. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Illinois' liquor control act as violating due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment because it allowed manufacturers to dictate prices at which their products could be sold by wholesalers or retailers without any regulatory oversight or standards for fairness.

Opinion written by Justice GSutherland
Decided: Dec 07, 1936
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