# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Wolfe v. National Lead Co. (No. 734) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0251%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1959 ## Text FILE COPY. - . ’ FILER i CEB 45 1980 -) Iu the Supreme Coby! | Xd | OF THE | ae a «i S United States - Octoner Tenn, 1959° oe : No 734 Bern arb Mo Worrr and FPrepegien J. | DANNENPREESER, ifviduals And. eo partuers, dome business under the hates and styles Dutth Paint Corn pany and ** Mamniny, Mitehell Paint ? Company.” ; yh ‘ Petition rR, | Vs. - iene NATIONAL Lexy Company, ant al corporation Coane Res por wh, ‘PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the United States Court of Appeals ~ for the Ninth Circuit , ‘CVn loprr, : . : Jobe Russ Bu ry Sa berats : Attornen for Petitioners. : Prep LECEN BERGER, 2 Russ Boildany San Francisco t. Califgurmia yr Cortipne I for Petition Me. Ta rs eter renin Subject Index ‘ Citgtions to opinions below’ ..2..... 6. .cecceeeeeeneeeeenes 3: " Quéstions presented ......:..0c..ceeeeeeees PUA a Ree Pera eS - Jurisdiction Drea res tte iecs sme eakaskies pina eves 7 Statutes RE Wienke Piss otien sens caeusees ee ca ae Statement of. PSE a ccdccsens sec eeceeeeeweneecs cere 4 Reasons for Granting the writ eg RS re RRS oe OE SE WwAeR s _Conelusion Litwaseadees Fainuknicnwieds Seana taek sadense OB ae > | ere . Appendices: . a A. Proceedings in Lower Courts (separately bound). ., B. . Abstract of: Record re uses of word “Dutch”. | C. Excerpts from \Webster’s New international Dictionary. D. Dollar ‘Valuation of US. Imports of Pigments, Paints ° and Variiishes, from The Netherlands, 1902-1958. / Table of Authorities Cited» : : Cases . | - Altoona Theatres v. Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935) 294 U.S| 477° 20. Armstrong Co. v. Nu-Enamel Corp. (1938) 305 US. aaa ..21, 22 Champion Plug Co. vy. Sanders (1947) soe US S98 ...:... — we Columbia. Mill Company v. Aleorn (1893) 150 U.S. 460. ‘ eee Renceesesabesensesenetssersescccccgmscss MAB, 12, 21 Corbin v. Gould (1890) 133 U.S. 308 ....... png HOP Ee 10, 11, 18 _) Hafnilton Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers (1916) 240 U.S. 251 .. 3, 21 ii ‘. Taste or Auruorizizs Crrep . Kellogg Co. v. Nat. Biscuit Co. (1938) 305 ce El ey ee “Menendez v. Holt (1888) 128 U.S..514 ..........8...6. pile Mercoid Wo. v..Mid-Continent Co. (1944) 320 U.S. 661... Mishawaka Mfg.Co. v. Kresge Co. (1942) 316 U.S. 208 :. ~ Muneie Gear Co. v. Outboard Co. *(1942) 315 U.S, 759 .... Panama Railroad v. seine Shipping Co. (1897) 166 US WS axe dey ce hin ttesnee sens sedadeehens VAdouadneleeties Paramount Corp. v. “Dr Ergon Corp.: (1935) 294, US. 464°: eT v. Eisner & Mendeloon Co. (1900) 179 US. 19. ~ Saxlehner v. Wagner (1910) 216 U.S. 375 .............2.. Se hriber Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. (1938) 305 U.S. 47 .... | Smith v. McCullough, (1926) 270 U.S. 456 ..... a, ‘inde bens Standard Paint .Co. v. Trinidad Asph. Co. (2982) 220 US. | " ‘446, 305 U.S. 335, footnote Wo... 2... tiie eee eee. 11,.13,21. Straus v. “Notaseme Co. (1916) 240 U.S. 179 ..... A eveuas Toledo Co. v. Computing Co. (1923) 261 US. 399 Ree ee United Drug Co. v. Rectanus Co. (1918) 248 U.S. oe: Faaaan * United States v. Denver & R.G.R.R. (1903) 191 U.S Wolfe et al. doing. business’as Duteh Paint Co., ‘ete. v. Na- tional Lead Co., November 7 i, 1955, .390 U, 3S. Me badas kee 2,19 He -% y ae as _ Statutes ae | rade-mark Act of 1905 as amended .......: 4 s+ee Eb ones ‘4,1: Trade-mark_ ae § ROR pe pearems Sane ce wie ow ‘Rnited State ~ Ocroser Term, 1959 No.’ - BeRNarp M. Wotre and FRreverick J. DANNENFELSER, ‘individuals and co- _ partners, doing business under the ‘names and styles ‘‘Dutch Paint Com- pany”’ and ‘‘Manning-Mitchell Paint ‘ _ Company,”’° - Petitioners, Vs. NationaL Leap CoMPaNY, | a corporation, Respondent. 7 PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the United States Court of Appeals ~~ for the Ninth Circuit ol Petitioners pray that the writ of certiorari. issue to’ review a final judgment ofthe United States Court’ ‘of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered on its Docket No. 16157.0n November 27, 1959; and to review. an s Iu the Supreme Court - U t e.. jntiitiniibaan judgment of ‘the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit entered on its Docket No. 13737 on May 17, 1955. Petitioners further pray _ for a reconsideration by this Court of the denial of “4 -their petition to review the. interlocutory —judement---— 4 -entered- May 17, 1955 (October term, .1955, Wolfe et. ~ al., doing business as Dutch Paint Co., ete., v. National Lead Co, November 1, 1955, 350 U.S. 63): CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW The Distriet Court made-no. opinion on the merits : ; -of the éause. Its findings of fact and conclusions of law (RA. 62-84)! are unreported and are reproduced _. in Appendix A, pages 2-23. The interlocutory opinion of the Court of Appeais is reported in 223 F.2d 195. . and is reproduced in Appendix A, pages 26-49. Fol- lowing remand of the cause pursuant to the interloc Me. tory opinion of the Court of Appeals, the. Distriet Court made two opinions; the first (RB. 35-52)? is reported~at—156_F.Sypp. 883. and is reproduced in_. Appendix A, pages 53-68, and the second ¢RB. 53-72) is unreported and is: reproduced 1 in Appendix A, pages 69-75. The final | ple - the Court of Appeals ( Ri. 433-440) is reported in 2 2 F.2d 867 and is re sore in Appendix A, pages sip ‘The record references (RA: _) in this petition refer to- - the pages of the record ori Apeeal No. 13,737 before this Court ‘ in the Oetober term, 1955, No. 357. 2The record references (RB ) in this petition refer to. the pages of the reeord on: Appeal No. 16,157 aatom this Court on the instant transeript. a) JURISDICTION The final judgment of the. ‘Court of heseiin was erttered on November 27, 1959 (RB.441). J urisdiction " of this Court is invoked under U.S. Code, Title 28, - _-—Seetidn 1254(1). ~ALurisdict tion of: this Court ovét the initerlgcutory judgment is based - ‘upon Keltogg Ogg Co. ve ' Nat. Biscuit Co. (1938) 305° U.S. 111, 115-116;. Smith ‘. McCullough (1926) 270 US. 456, ‘461; Hamilton Shes Co. v. Wolf Brothers (1916) 240 U.S. 251, 257- 258; United States v. Denver & R.G.R.R. (1903) 191 _ U.S. 84, 93; Panama Railroad v. Napier Shipping Co. (1897) 166 U.S. , 280, 283-284; and dictum in. Toledo , -Co, v. Computing. Co (am) 261 U.S. 399, 418. Se QUESTIONS PRESENTED | 1 Does the use of the trade-mark “Dutch Paint”. and the trade-name ‘Dutch Paint Company” cégsti- tute infringement of, and unfair competition with, the trade-mark **Duteh Boy’? | | 2. Cana person be held guilty of fraudule nt adop- _ tion of a trade -mark and a trade- -name when . (a) the trade -mark and trade-name sage were astablished by his predecessor a number of years he- fore*he acquired the business in question ; on ? “ (b) his attorney had given him an opinion that ame: : conduct was law ful; (e). the attorney Sei the claimant, had given the claimant an opinion that such use of the trade -mark | and trade- -nhame was lawful; and rae STATUTES INVOLVED Act of February 20, 1905, é. 592, Section 5, 33 Stats. 724, at 726,sas amended by the Act of March 2, 1907, «. 2573, 34 Stats. 1251; as amended by the Act of Febru- ary 18, 1911, «. 113, 36+Stats. 918, at 919, as amended by the Act of January 8, 1913, ¢. 7, 37 Stats. 649, which . provides ‘without substantial change ee the various amendments of Section 5 ' “* * * no mark which nit ** * merely in words.or devices which are descriptive of the | goods with which they are used,‘or of the char- acter or quality of such goods, or merely a geo- graphical name or term, shall be registered under ° the terms of this Act:° °°.” ; “Act of July 5, 1946, ¢. 540, ‘Mection 49, 60 Stat. 446: , “ Nothing heeelis [in this chapter] shall ad- versely, affect the rights er the enforcement of rights in marks acquired in good. faith prior to the effective date of this Act [July 5, 1947].”’ _- STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pe ile brought a civil action for declaratory. judgment against responde nt alleging that they and their predecessors had been engaged in the business of | manufacturing and selling paints and paint products since as early as August 1941; that they had employed $ 4 (d). a United States District Court pa held that mts his conduct was law ful? ' ; : ' ® 5 , - the trade name “Duteh Paint’ Co.’ ” and the ¢ the trade name ‘“Duteh Paint’’ in in conducting their business; and that _ a controversy arose from certain notices of infringe- ment which respondent sent petitioners charging them _. with ‘infringement of United States Trademark Regis-. tration No. 351,264 issued October 26, 1937° for’ the © . trade-mark ‘‘ Dutch Boy” (R.A. 3-12). Respondent, in ae a counterelaim, charged petitioners’ with trade-mark } infringement and unfair competition (RA. 15-20). ‘The ‘trial before the late Hon. Herbert W. Erskine — ~ took 25 court days (RA. 62, App. A, 2). The. record ” comprises 2426 printed pages (RA. 88-25 13). There: — were approximately 3,000 pages of typed. transcript and approximately 450 exhibits (RA. 2515). After briefing but hefore oral argument Judge Er- skine passed away (RA. 2514) and the parties by stip- ulation. submitted the cause on the original record for decision by the Hon. Edward | P. Murphy (RA. 63, App. A 3). Oral arguments on this record. took six court days (RA. 63, App. A 3). Upon this extensive record and these complete argu-— ments, Judge Murphy granted petitioners the declara- tory judgment for which they prayed and disinissed respondent’s counterclaim (RA. 84-86; App. A, pages 24-25). This judgment was supported by detailed find-- ings of fact and sate ara of law AS A, 7 a _A, 2-23), - 7 fo LP, ° Upon review, the Court of Appeals refused to follow the findings of fact of the Distriet Court: made ae own fact determinations; reversed the judgment of the | str 6 District Court; and remanded the cause to the District Court with dinections to dismiss the petitioners’ com- - plaint, to grant. the respondent an injunction, to pro- ceed to take an accounting of the petitioners’ profits, and to determine the respondent’s damages (RA. 25: a 2548, App. A 26-47; RB. 29-31, App. A'47-49). 7 “After having ordefed an accounting, the District’ ~ Court entered judgment in favor of respondent and against petitioners in the sum of $239,457 86 (RB. 72- 73, App. A, 76) representing profits in the sum. of | $178,657.86 and attorneys’ fees in the sum of $60,800 . (RB: 59-60, App. A, 74-75). The. Court of Appeals affirmed (RB. 441, App. A, 87). 7 his petition seeks’ review of the final judgment of ~ the Court of Appeals as well as the interlocutory pro- ceedings leading up to the entry of judgment. | _ REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT Petitioners on May 10, 1946, bought the Dutch Paint ‘Company, a small paint factory in San Francisco. At the time of this purchase, Dutch Paint Cémpany was ° ’ producing and selling ‘products: under the “Dutch” label (RA. 65, Finding. 10, App. A, 5-6). The prede- cessor Company Was an established business at the time petitioners acquired it. It had heen in existence since “March of 1941 (RA. 495). ‘It registered in the ‘San Francisco Recorder, a local legal paper, as the Dutch Pe . \ : - . \ \: ae aad are : age eo . Paint Company j in neti of 1941 (RA, 495). It advers tised continuously i in both the alphabetic and classified "he sections of the San Francisco Telephone Directory — - commencing With the August, 1941 issue (RA. 961: _ 964). When petitioners bought this business, it was producing about 100 gallons of *‘Dutch’’ paint a day _. (RA. 483) and it had a number of established custom- ers (RA. 479-480, 628-631). ae Petitioners continued the “Duteh”” paint line which they acquired. until prohibited from so doing by the ’ order of the Court of Appeals (RB, 212). Petitioners’ sales in Dutch Paint and their profits as determined : by the District pout are as follows (RB. 60-72) : Year Ending e Gross Sales - “Profit - April 30, 1947» $126,743.00 °$30,437.28° - April 30, 1948 «245,830.00 - 6,639.66 Apfil 30, 1949 =”: 431,625.00 - ° 40,217.05 April 30, 1950 515,323.00. 44,867.20 Pa April 30,1951 ~ 549,021.21 —«69-765.35—s April 30, 1952 363,167.12 + 12,853.98. - April 30, 1953 292,501.30 10,954.28 April 30, 1954 | 180,540.75; 1,258.10 April 30, 1.955 181,663.37% . 2,138.50 April 30, 1956 - ~~ 51,144.08 ©. 28,547.11 Totals | —- $2,937,558.83- $109,637.21 ~ ‘The record discloses and the District Court and the Court of Appeals both found that respondent had used “a “*Dutch Boy” trade-mark long prior. to petitioners’ * commencement in the business (District Court Find- 3The figures in italies represent losses for the years in question. of Appeals that there was no connection between the third party users of .the word ‘*Duteh”. and petition- ers’ use of the word ‘Dutch’: which would stand in | the way of .a favorable judgment and decree,.and then as soon asthe decision of the Court of Appeals had hecome finalized by the denial of the petition, it- stic- cessfully obtained agreements of substantially all of . the fifteen remaining users of the *‘ Dutch’’ expression to stop using the word **Dutch’’, Respondent’s monopoly of the word **Duteh” now ” opérates to the deprivation not only of these petition-- ers, but of the entire public as well. There is no. on¢ left to dispute respondent's monopoly. One would be foolhardy to do so at the risk of ‘sustaining the con- tiseatory damages and attorneys’ fees which have been imposed upon petitioners in this case, Petitioners submit that the solidification of Fespond- ~ Jent’s umwarranted monopoly over the word ‘ Duteh™ after the denial of certiorari in this ease cries out for reconsideration of the denial of the original eg? in this case, just as ‘it did in Paramount Corp, v. Tri- Ergon Corp, (1935) 294. U, S. 464, and Alteons The- utees v. Tri-Ergon Cor ». (1935). 294 U.S. 477, wherein the, petitions were granted (293 U.S. 528) after dertial (293 U.S. 587) in part’ because of respondent's post denial coercive trade activittes ( see Petitions for Re- | hearing: No. 254, pp. 2-6; -N6. 255 and 256, pp. 2-3). . Moreover, in view of the fact that substantially all users of ‘Duteh’’ have now stopped using the word “Duteh’’, a resulting conflict of decisions is impreb- able, just as it was in such cases as Sehriber. Co. v. - —— Cleveland Trust Co. (1938) 305 U.S. 47, 50; and Mun- \ 765-766. - 5. The principal authorities cited by the Couit of Appeals do not furnish independent t grounds for sup- porting ‘the judgment. — * 240, US 2 (cited by Court of Appeals, App. A, pages fn and 34) involves a conflict hetween the words * nericah Lady” and “The American Girl.” The aoe” paze 297, distinguished but did not over- rule Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn (1893) 150 U.S. 460. In so doing, this Court stated, page 257: point. “3 In the case at bar, the mark in controversy is Columbia“Mill Co. and to * ‘American shoes’’ cited: by way of example in Hamilton Shoe Company and not “Dutch Boy” or **The Dutch Man’? comparable* to dicated in Hamilton Shoe Com pany. ' Armstrong Co. v. Nu- Enamel Corp. (1938) 305 - U.S. 315 (cited by Court of Appeals, App. A, pate 35) distinguishes but does noteoverrule ‘Standard Paint cie Gear Co. v. Outboard Co. (1942) 315 USS. 759, - Hamilton Shoe Company v. Wolf Brothers (1916) 6. -02 © 2 BP Gh ‘mark here in sinhinntens were. | ‘American shoes* these cases would be quite in * ‘“Dutch”’ comparable to “Cohimbia’ ’ adjudicated in ° ‘‘American Lady’? and ‘The American Girl” adju- Co., v. Trinidad Asph. Co. (1911) 220 U.S: 446 (see 305 U.S. 335, fuotnote 24). This Wourt said, page 3355 In so doing the’ Court said, page 335; & “* * * Hore we have a secondary meaning to the descriptive term, *‘Nu-Enamel.’ This establishes, ihe Spike ' 22 a entirely apart from any trademark act, the com- mon law right of the Nu-Enamel. Corporation to be free from the competitive use of these. words as a trade-mark or trade name.” he Armstrong there was proof of secondary meaning by: virtue of defendant’ s pleading, page 320: . « ‘Defendant admitted ‘that the name: “Nu- . Enamei” has come to mean and is understood to mean, throughout the Unitéd States, including the State of Illinois and the City of Qhicago, the. plaintiff and plaintiff's products. only, and? the - word ‘*Nu-Enamel’’ is a. mark by which the goods of the plaintiff are distinguished, from other goods of the same class’;.* * *”’ ¢ , “Tn the present case Ns meaning of the word .& “Dutch” is not admitted; in the present case there is “hi evidence or proof of secondary meaning; ‘and in the present case there are no findings of fact either by ‘the District’ Court or, the Court of Appeals that Dutch’ does have secondary meaning. If such find- ings had been-made, they would have been clearly erroneous for the reason that respondent was never the exclusive proprietor’. of the word “Dutch”, and - for the reason that it introduced no evidence ‘even’ « tending to show s secomeaty, # meaning in 1941° when peti- ®One of the essential shen ‘to establishing secondary tmean- ing of a geographi¢al or descriptive term is proof that the pro- prietor has had at least some-exclusive use of the term. Ellay , Stores, Inc. v. Savitz (Pa. 1939) 30 F. Supp. 462, 463; Corning * Glass Works v. Pasmaatier (N.Y. 1939) 30 FP. Supp.. 477, 482. See. also U.S. Code, Title 15, Section 1052 (f). TBoth on reason and authority: the alleged trademark must + have -acquired a secondiry meaning before the petitioners began to manufacture and spH their product. Quaker State On 7 a *s tioners’ predecessors adopted and began te promote “Dutch Paint Company” or in 1946, when the peti- tioners themselvés assumed proprietorship of the - Dutch ‘Paint Company and. Dutch paint labels, or at any other time.* | es wee 7 Menendez v. Halt (1888) 128 U.S. 514 (cited by Court. of Appeals, App. A, page 40) involves a wholly arbitrary term ‘*La Favorita’’ used as a- brand on _ flour. This Court upheld the validity and infringe- _ ment of the trademark as against a former partner. ~ of the trademark proprietor. With regard to a single _. prior public use of the. mark, : this Court said, page 521: : “* * * such use was discontinued before Holt & Co. appropriated the words to identify their own | ‘flour, and there was no attempt to resume it.”’ ‘This should be distinguished from the’ case’ at bar Wherein the public never discontinued to use the word 7 “Dutch” until long after respondent's adoption of ‘Dutch Boy’’ and then only under compulsion from _ respondent. At all times prior: to respondént’s adop: | tion of “‘Dutch Boy” and. petitioner’s acquisition of Dutch Paint and Dutch Paint Company, there have heen one or more users of the word “Dutch.” Co, v. Steinberg (1937) 325 Pa. 273 280, 284, 189 -Atl” 473, 476, 478; Upjohn Co. v. Witliam. 8. Merrell Chemical Co. (6th Cir. 1920) 269 Fed. :209,- 212-213;. Maveo, Inc. v. Hampden Salés Ass'n (1948) 273 App, Div. 297, 302. 77 NYS 2d 510,515. ‘Ay late as thé trial of this cause, Charles F. Kaegebehn, manager of the patent department of respondent (RA. 695) admitted to the - Distriet Court, “e.* * the word ‘Dutch,’ as fer as my understanding goes, ~ hasn’t any signifieance in paint, per se.. When one says ‘Duteh « good. many products that this firm sells (RA. 299). This firm is a customer of respondent, and Charles F. Keegebehn, manager of respondent's .patent de- partment. (RA. 695) had‘ no reports of confusion as to the use of this label (RA, 734). This notation is listed in the 1947 trademark directory (RA. 894). “Dutch” and ‘Dutch Paint Co.” by North Jersey Paint-Co., Ine., Passaic, New Jersey. Commencing in about the year 1930 and continuing until a date sub sequent to June. 30, 1949, this firm employed a label bearing the trade style,‘*Dutch Paint Co.’’ and. the word **Duteh”’ on paints manufac tured and sold by it (Request 40(a), RA, 167 168). Exhibit 34 is a photo- static copy of a label employ ed by this concern (RA. 169). Subsequerit to June 30, 1949, 1 respondent pro- tested to this-user by a notice of infringement (Re- | quest 40(¢), RA. 169). No reports of confusion were, brought to. respendent’s attention (RA. 738-740) 7 Charles F. Kaegebehn suggested to this firm that this — sort of thing was an infringement of our ‘Dutch’ Boy’ trademark (RA. 742); This firm said it had no - desire to continue the label but the matter was. in stattis quo (RA, 743-744). Mr. Kaegebehn learned of. ‘this use about the time of the inst’ ‘tution of the present action GRA. 855-856 ). This firm had some deaiérs: in "Brooklyn, the Bronx and Bergen County, New Jersey (RA. 858). This’ firin was one of the i5 oF SO persons “who agreed to stop using the word *Duteh"’ after the denial of certiorari in this Case (RB. 105-106), “Dutch.” in one loins or another by General ‘Paint. John Lb. Heinric h, re spondents” counsel and secre tary, . . Fs : . : ¥. - , a ‘ . ° ae . ° oan identified this as one of .15 various users of ‘* Dutch” - who agreed to stop using the word Dutch” upon t t!. denial ‘of the original petition for eertiorant m + this case (RB..105-106). **Dutch’”’ in AS form or another by M & B nnibie: turing Company. This is another of the 15 or so com- panies who stopped using the word *“dDutch”’ after the denial of the writ (R B. 105- 106). ” . -“Dutch”’ in one forns or another by Markelk This i is another of the 15 or so companies who stopped using the word “Dutch” after the denial of the writ (RB. 105- -106Y. : “Dutch”’ in one form or another by Jack Roy. This is another of the 15 or so companies w ho stopped using the word Dutch” after the denial -of the writ (RB. 105-106). “Dutch” in dne fora or-another by Tobias. This is another of the 15 or se companies who. stopped using the word “Dutch” after the denial of the writ (RR. ~TH5-106). | fos : “Dutch Blend” by, Twenticth Century Paint Com- pany, New York. Respondent: protested this use and . negotiated an agreement whe reby they abandone d the © mark in 1949. (2A, 2368-2369), ‘Dutch Blue” by Gillespie Varnish Company of © Jersey City, New Jersey. Petitioner Wolfe. identified a color eard he'd had for. about three vears. on the _inside of which was listed thei quick drying ename! with the ds signdtion “Dutch Blue’ (Exhibit 126, RA. I27-w29). iv _ “Dutch Blue’ by Pacific Paint and Varnish Com- pany of Sain Francisco and Berkeley, California. Peti-. tioner Wolfe also*had a color card making this refer- ence to the color 52,452 ‘Dutch Blue’ (RA. 527-529, Exhibit 126). j ae “Dutch Blue” by Pervo Company of Los Angeles. Petitioner Wolfe. had a color card three or more years old at the, time of trial (RA. 527-529, Exhibit 126). “Dutch Blue”? by Edward Smith & Co., Inc., of New York, New. York. Petitioner Wolfe also had a color ecard for this firm’s *‘quick drying ename!”’ indicating the ‘colér ** Dutch. Blue” (RA. 928-529, Exhibit 126). & “Dutch Boy”’ by Selby Lead Company. A. Vernon - - (ireen, Presi lent of Tibbetts Corporation (RA; 2°57) - identified this as an early use of ‘‘Dutch Boy” on \ white lead paste. He recollected this as a youngster | - CRA, 372-373). rh _ - _ “Dutch Brand” by The Care Lumber Company. ‘Lhis is another of the 15 concerns who stopped using the word **Dutch”’ after ‘the de nial of the earlier, petition for the writ of certiorari (RB. 106). “Dutch Brand” by The Perry & Derrick Co., Inc . of Cinéinnati, Ohio. This concern, for a period com- | mencing about twenty vears ago and continuing ty _date, has einployed. a label -bearing the notation . Dutch Brand” in the designation of paint sold by it (Request 33(a), and answer RA. 158-159). Exhibit 22 is a photostatie copy @f the “Dutch Brand” label . . 8 Vv. employed by said concern (RA. 15 9). Ferdinand J. Derrick, president of this tirm, testified as to this use (RA. 247-260). Exhibit 56 are samples of labels eur. | rently used by this firm (RA. 247-248). Exhibits oT , and 58 are ne wspaper advertisements (RA, 249-: 250). of - The dealers zre located within the metropolitan Cin- | cipnati area (RA, 251). Exhibit 59-is ap invoice (RA. ,252-253). The use of **Dutch Brand". on paints ex- tended back to 1928 (RA. 253°). The earlier labels.were * entirely different and featured **Dutch Brand” and | the mill more prominently than -the current labels (RA. 254). This firm’s distribution, was a radius’ og approximately : 20)-miles from Cinvinnati (RA. 254). ‘Exhibit D is a group of labels used on products othe ae than the ‘*Dutch Brard’’ house paint (RA, 256). Re- spondent’s Cincinnati branch manager was personally aware. of the ‘Dutch. Brand’ since 1930 (RA. 263- 204). This firm is a-customer of respondent, and ré- ‘spondent has had noe complaints of confusion arising out of the ‘Dutch Brand” on paint (RA. 709-710). ‘Dutch Country by Benjamin Foster Company, Philadelphia, Pennsy!vania. This concern émployed a - label bearing, the--werds ** Dutch Country” for paint manufactured and sold by it commencing in the year 1934 and continuing until the year 1942 when it ‘dis- continued the use of sue ‘+h dabel and such words (Re- que st 46(a), RA. le -173). Exhibit 36 is a photostatic copy of A folder éimple: wed by this concern (Request 46(b), RA. 173). This label was still listed in the 1947 @ vi d directo y but Charles Kaegebehn had information that . this firm discontinued the use of .that designation in about 1942 (RA, 886). | ‘Dutch -ostoay by Fe deral Paint Company, Ine. 33 Rector Street, New York, New York. This concern, commencing haat the year 1925, and continuing to date, employed a label bearing the words *‘*Diiteh Enamel’? to describe an enamel manufactured and sold by it under its trade-mark, Fedeo (Request 31, RA. 150-151). Exhibit 18 is a photostiitie copy of por- _ tions of an advertising folder nsed in sales promotions _ depicting a can with the ‘Dutch Enamel” label ape - plied: (Request 31(b), Exhibit 18, RA. 152). This con- cerm sells its predue ts, including “Dutch Enamek’, pringipally in states east of the Rocky Mountains (Re: quest 31(¢), RA. 152), George H. Miles, Vice -Prési- dent of: the company, testified as to a manufacture and sale of Dutch Enamel’? (RA, 235 et- seq.). Ex- . hibit 50 1s an empty can with the name “Duteh En- amel”’ lithographed thereon (RA, 236-238). The words - “Duteh Enamel’ have been Cisplayed on such ans substantially in that form and manner siyce 1925 (RA. 238). E\bibit 51 is-a paper label used wher the. lithegraphed cans were scarcé (RA. 238-239). Exhibit: 52 is an advertising folder (RA. 240), ‘*Duteh* En- amel**is available not only in the United States,-but to any prospective buyer (RA, 241). Pillsbury & Mar- tignionl? is the company’s sales cee deale ‘Yr in San Francisco (RA, 241). **Fedeo” is a _ principal trademark of: the company (RA, 242). Ex. hibit Beis a label used on smaller sized cans of ‘Dutch ‘ar \ pr vii Enamel” (RA. 243). Exhibit C ist sample color ecard . (RA, 244-245). On Exhibit. 50 “Duteh ‘Enamel”” ap-— pears on the top ef the label, and Fedeo ‘appears in ~ - the center (RA, 704). Charles: F. Kaegebehn was not aware of this use until the litigation CRA: 704-705). This company’ is a customer of. Natigynal Lead Com- °. pany (RA. 705). G: i Mere “Dutch Kalsomine’’. by ‘The Muralo Company of. N. Brighton and Staten Island, New York. This firm ‘y ‘listed ‘*Duteh Kalsomine”” for kalsomine on August 3, “1910 us appears from the 1912 Tradémark Register (Request 16, RA. 99-100),. The Court of Appeals for the Diktvict of Columbia dismissed respondent's oppo- sition to the registration of this trademark:on March > 6, 1911 (Request 26(a), RA, 108-109), . Respondent never brought an unfair competition action against this firm {Request 26¢b), RA, 110). ‘This firm, gon- - tinuously since February 10, 1909, has employed the words ‘Dutch Kalsomine” to designate kalsoraine in dry powder form ( Request 26(¢), RAAU0). This firme has advertised the **Dutch Kalsomine’’ as such #n newspapers and trade paper publications and. the product has been nationally distpibuted “(Request ° 26(d), RA. 110-111). Trademark registration 86,725 Was issued to this firm on May 28, 1912 (Exhibit’8, RA.-112-115). Alfred F. King, Jr., president ‘of this > * firm, testified as to the current usage (RA. 204-219), Exhibit 43 is a sample carten (RA. 207). The product is sold nationally (RA. 208). The demand for kalso- mine today isa fraction of What it was in the 1920’s hecause casein paints such as Kemtone have now é eee 7 ’ | ‘nie along (RA.. 209- 210). ‘Exhibit 44 is a Dutch zene color chart (RA. 210-29P):. This. firm has ° pushed the product because it is smal fraction _of its sales (RA. 212-213). Exhibit 4¥ 1g ani advertise- —_ from National Painters Magazine for August, 950 in which Dutch Kalsomine is carried at the bot- ac of the advertisement and included atmong other trade products that are listed and manufactured by this firm (RA. 214). A. Vernon Green, President of Tibbett’s eee (RA. 357), remembered “Old, -. Dutch Kalsomine’’ made by The Muralo Company in * New York as far back as along in 1907 (RA. 370), Charles ‘William Blakiston,.a paint and wallpaper ’ merchant in San Francisco, (RA. 862), has known of . Fis “the Muralo’ water paints: since 1930 - and carries ‘‘Dutech Kalsomine”’ im stock (RA. 867). Mr. Blaki- “~~ ston confirmed Mr. King’s testimony that these caseill , type water paints have largely supplanted. kalsomine . and that -Kalsomine sales have dropped 75% ‘in the * last teh years (RA. 869). | Ssoutch Kraft” by Grand Rapids Paint and d Enamel ‘, —. Co.*of Grand Rapids, ‘Michigan. This firm employ ed a label bearing the words ‘‘Dutch Kraft’ for paint which it sells but does not manufaéture,. commiehejns on or about October 26, 1928 and continuing - to date» ~ (Request 36(a), RA. 162- -163). Exhibits 25 and 26 are photostati¢ gopies ‘of “Dutch Kraft” labels (RA... 163), Exhibits 27, 28 and, 29 are photostatic copies of cover pages of olor charts used by this’ firm (Re- quest 36(e), RA. 163-164). This firm obtained ‘the _"__yegistration of “its **Duteh Kraft’ mark on April . e \ P ae x ix id ©. } 30, 1929 ‘ies No. 255,844 (Request 36(d), Exhibit 30, RA. 164). On June 10, 1947, registration 430 4196 . issued ‘to this firm for ‘‘Dutch Kraft’? mark (Request | 36(e), RA. 164-165). Exhibit 136 i is a *‘Dutch Kraft”’ label (RA. 554). Charles F. Kaegebehn’ s investiga- id tion disclosed that this ‘Dutch Kraft’? name was used ° -loeally in Southeast Michigan, that it had been used there for.quite a few years, and that as far as:re- ~ spondent could find -out, it had .not -been ‘sold much _ outside of that area ( RA. 847). “Dutch Lad” by Pr octor Painf & Var nish. This is another of the 15 concerns who stopped using the word ‘‘Dutch” after the denial of the — petition for the writ of. certiorari (RB. 106). ‘“Dutchland Enamel” by Packar& Pairit and ton nish Company at Cambridge, Massachusetts, com- . meheing in or abeut June 1931 and continuing to date this firm: employed a label bearing the word ‘‘ Dutch- land’’ for. an enamel which it manufactured: and- sold ¢ Request 38(a), not denied, RA. 166-167), Respond- ~~ ent-associated this phrase descriptively with enamel and its inv estigation disclosed that it-had been used for some years locally in New England (RA, 853-854), -. “Dutch Maid” by 8. Offerman, Inc., New York, New York. This firm registered Five trademark ‘‘ Dutch Maid”’ in the 1947 Trademark Directory for. paints, ‘ shellacg and varnishes. Mr. Kaegebehn was unable to find such a product sold, under. that. name (RA. 887) but no ‘further testimony as* to. this, use—Was- presented. ° \ X> Fe “Dutch Masters’’ by Dutch Masters Paint and Varnish Co. of Brooklyn, New Yorke This concern, - -. and its predecessor, Varnish Products Co.,.commenc-. ing ‘on or about November 11, 1926, and ‘continuing | _ to date, employed labels on which appears the words ~ ‘Dutch Masters’’“and an associated representation. of the head and bust -of.a man for ready mixed paints | and varnishes, sold by it principally in New York City and its environs (Request 30, RA. 147-149): | ERhibit 16 is a -photostatie copy of two “Dutch Mas" * ters’’ labels. The mark ‘‘Dutch Masters’’ was regis- tered in the Patent. Office on October 4, 1927, as No. 233,524 (Retuest 30, RA. 150). Theodore Shapiro, a’ - partner and one of the founders of the firm, “testified ‘that the mark was used on a full Kine of house paints, both interior, and_exterior, decératiye enamels and — construction specialties (RA. 225-226). Exhibit 47 is a ‘‘Dutch Masters’’ floor and deck enamel labe!; Ex- hibit 48 is a ‘Dutch Masters” decorative trim color ‘label; Exhibit 49 is a ‘Dutch Masters”’ quality house’ > paint label (RA. 228-229). These are current labels (RA, 229).- The ‘‘Dutch Masters’’ products have. a wide-distribution inthe metropolitan area of greater New York and along the Atlantie seaboard down to | Florida. and north to the New England states (RA. 231). The company advertised the “‘Dutch Masters’” brand of paints in the press, outdoor signs, window displays and a limited amount of radio ‘work (RA. 231). The company had a regular dealer in Portland. Maine,-yntil he passed away a yeay ago (RA. 233). The company advertised in newspapers in Newark. — South Carolina, Miami, ond loc al boroughs (RA. 233), Exhibit 132 is a ‘‘Dutch Masters” label (RA. 552): The company has been a customer of. National Lead for over 20 years, but Charlés F. Kaegebehn had. no reports gf confusion (RA. 707). . | _ 4 » “Dutch Mill’ by. Stgndard, Brands Paint Stores. . Petitioner Bernard M. Wolfe obtained a label from a - ¢an of a pile of approximately 100 cans in a floor - display at this firm’s store in Los Angeles (RA. 537- * 538, Exhibit wid Since approximately 1947 or 1948, Mr. Wolfe visited two stores: in Fresno and Los’ An- geles. (RA. 539-540), Walter J. Schulps, an outside .... “sales representative for respondent (RA. 1972) saw this. brand, on sale: at, a\Standard Brands store in Bakersfield in his territory (RA. 2017). “Dutch Mill’? by M. G. Stonemartn'& Son of Albany,’ New York. Commencing in or about the month of October 1934 and continuing to date, this firm em- ptoyed a label bearing the. words’ “Dutch Mill’’ for some paint: sold® by -it (Request 37 (a), not dénied. RA. 165). Exhibit 32 is a copy ‘of a: sample of the “Dutch Mill’? laSel employed by said concern’ (Ré- * quest 37(b) and answer, RA. 165-166). Charles Kaege- _behn went to: see the owners of this business and noted that, the firm sells paints and doesn’t make them, This label was used on a second grade of this firm’s - paint. This firm also handled respondent’s products - under’the “Dutch Boy” trade mark and the «witness had tio reports of confusion in the trade concerning — this use (RA. 737- 73 38). Respondent was first aware | of this use in December 1949 (RA. 852-85 3). > : ee “Dutgh Proceas’’ by National Manufacturing Com.” ‘pany and Hayes-Taylor of “Tonawanda, New . York. ° This mark is listed in the 1947 Trademark. Directory aa _ and respondent’s inquiry disclosed that they had not: - ‘used the designation for years. (RA. 889-890). Re- spondent. offered no evidence as to. the duration of this use. — nr F oh “Dutch Standard” by Harrison Paint and Varnish Company, of Canton, Ohio. Commeneing ‘on or about June 2, 1933 and continuing to date, this concern has _ | . cube labels bearing the words “Dutch Standard”’ _in the designation of ‘ready mixed: paints enamels and varnishes sold by it (Request 29(a), RA. 142). Ex- hibit.12 is a phofstatic. copy of a Dutch Standard - label, employed by this concern (Request 29(b), RA. 142-143). Exhibit 13 is a .photostatic copy of a color — chart: employed by this concern in 4he-promotion in the sales of Ditch Standard paint and enamels (Re- quest 29(¢), RA. 143). In the year 1947 the respond: | ent protested the use by said concern of the figure of a boy in the traditional dress of Holland but made no protest against the continued use of the Dutch Stand- - ard brand (Request 29(b), RA. 143-144). This firr obtained registration No. 371,933 on October 17, 1939 in which it disclaimed the words ** Dutch Standard”’- apart from the mark as shown (Request 29(e), Ex- hibit 15, RA. 145-147). Gordoit G@,. Walter, president _of the firm, testified as to this use (RA. 266-277). Duteh Standard is our first grade line of products and’ Harrison is our second line of products (RA. 267). Dutch Standard embraces a complete line of shelf _ ° Ss, . _ pill _ goods for house paints, enamels*and varnishes (RA. ' °267). The concern used the Dutch Standard brand “ -since 1933 (RA. 268). It, first used Old Dutch but upon objection to the word ‘Old’? by. Sherwin-Wil- _liams as they had Old- Dutch, Enamel this’ concern _ dropped the word “Old” after 1936 (RA. 268). The Dutch Standard brand has been i in constant use since the settlement with Sherwi in (RA. 268). The concern - operates in Ohio, Western New York, Western Penn- ’ sylvania, West ° Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan (RA..268). Exhibit 62 is the file wrapper of its trademark registration No. 371,9 933 (RA, -269- 272). The company advertises jn the American. Paint find Oil Dealer and has ‘newspaper advertising (RA. “$74).- The words “Dutch St&ndard” are given prom- ‘inence in the advertisement of the Cincinnati Store (RA. 275). Exhibits 63-64 are. pictures of the interior. - . wo “of the” store-showing’ that 9A0—of the-material_in the store features the Dutch Standard trademark.. - (RA, 275-276). Andrew Chrien, secretat ‘y-treasurer of ‘this firm also testified (RA. 277- 292). Mr. Chrien’ S - personal knowledge of the Dutch Standard*brand goes back. to May 11, 1934 when he was first employed by Mr. Walter as an individual (RA. 278). The krand’ has been used continuously (RA, 278-279). Exhibit _ 66 is an advertisement of this in the American Paint and Oil Dealer (RA. 280). Exhibit 6 an ady ertis- ing scrap-book (RA. 281). Exhibit 69 is ? } photograph of an electric sign exhibiting the Dutch Standard hame (RA, 282-283). Exhibit. 70 is one ef 48 différent labels produced by Mr. Chrien (RA. 284-285). Exhibit ; s. 71 is a Dutch’ Standard’ 5 red lead label (RA. 285). _ Exhibit 72 is a Dutch Standard varnish label (RA. 286). Exhibit 73 is a Dutch Standard label for an’ implemental paint (RA. 28@). The name- Harrison is’ also prominently displafed (RA. 287). Mr. Chrien identified 4 advertisenients whith did not bear the name Dutch Standard, (Exhibit E, RA. 288-289). Exhibit F is a Wood-Nu label (RA. 290). Exhibit 69 isa photograph of a sign, Skinner and Skinn@r, Néw- Kensington, Philadelphia (RA. 290), Exhibits 70-73 were started in 1938 and were manufactured by the | ~ Fuller Label and Box Company, Pittsburg (RA. 291). , ‘Previous to that time local printing firms made up the labels (RA. 291). Charles F. Kaegébehn was aware of no confusion arising out of this. label and had been: aware of the use for 2 or 3 years (RA. 711). Mr. - Kaegebehn identified -¢orrespondence (Exhibits 140- 141-142, RA 711-719). Up to Nove: 50,-re— spondent did not protest the use of ‘‘Dutch’’ by this firm (RA. 719-720). This firm was not requested to _ give up nor did ‘it’ give up the use of the word ‘*Dutch”’ in the ring Standard’? (RA. 917- | 918). However on th nial of certiorari this firm became one of 15 people who agreed to stop } using he . word **Duteh” (RB. 105-106). ee és { “Dutch Stand Oil”? by Louisville Varnish W Works, Louisville, Kentucky. This mark is included ‘in the - | 1947 edition of the Trademark Register? Respondent | was informed that the mark was discontinued, that it has been used on linsee@f oil, that the designation was stencilled on the barrels and it was sort of a specialty re : t ‘ ‘ : ake | By? item. it-was not in use in November, 1950 (RA. 895). Respondent offered no further evidence as'to this use. > “Dutch Style’ by. Chicago White Ledd and Paint — ‘Manufacturing Co., Chicago, Illinois (Hooker Glass ~ and Paint Manufacturing Co., successors). This con- -- cern employed a™label bearing ‘the-words ‘Dutch : — . Style’? on an enamel manufactured. by it and sold in © and around Chicago under the trade mark ‘!Anister: dam”. ‘This concern employed said label for about 10 years ending in the year 1930 (RA. 173-174). Exhibit - 37 is a photostatic copy of, the ‘label (RA. 175). Ex- hibit 129 is the label:removed from a paint can: (RA. 550). This Jabel was. discontinued many years ago (RA. 893-894). | : Daniel D. Roberts, a branch manager of respondent, knew of this product-back in the early.thirties, which would be approximately 1930 to 1940 (RA: 1634-1635). _ edition of trade names registered with the National 1906 (RA. 99-100). It ‘was -still listed—in- the 1947 name was no longer being used i in 1950 (RA. 891). tioner Wolfe produced ai color card of this firm listing “Dutch White’’ as color No. 118 under ““Bondex Cement Paint’’. (RA. 528-529, Exhibit 126). Petitioner “Dutch type enamel” by The Glidden Company. “Dutch White’ by The Billings-Chapin Co., Cleve-- land, Ohio. This tradp name was listed in the 1912 — Paint, ‘Oil and Varnish Association as of April 11, —4irectory“(RA. 890).” This company’ was taken over | by The Glidden. Company, andthe: “Dutch White’ “Dutch White’’ ‘by the Reardon. Company. Peti- nt ae > xvi 7 ee ae i, . : a | —. ssh Wolfe observed this color card at a retail paint store in San Francisco within three weeks prior to the, trial . (RA. 529-530). “Dutch White” by Tibbetts Corporation, . Los An. geles, California. A. Vernon Green, presidént of this . firm, -testified as to this use (RA. 35 97-380). This firm’ | e used the expression “‘Gloss Finish Dutch White”’ on three different - tester paints and * the designation. ‘Dutch White’’.on a * particular shade of white on its | “Colored Sunshine”’ card (RA. 367). Exhibit 98 is a label (RA. 367). Charles F. Faye, a hardware mer- chant in, Los Angeles (RA. 1308) handled resporid-— - ent’s paint (RA. 1309) -gnd - Tibbetts’ paint (RA. -. 1318). He stoe ‘ks the “Gloss Finish Dutch White” paint referred to in Exhibit 97 (RA, 1319)... . ae “Holland Dutch” by Pervo Paint Company of Los Angeles. This company fora per iod of time commenc- - ing ‘in approximately 1923 and continuing to date has _ employ ed a label bearing the words: “Holland Dutch” ‘to describe’ a waterproof paint sold. by it (Request 32a); not defied, RA. 155). ‘Respondent wits in-- formed and believed that the ‘use began about 1927 or 1928 (RA. 156).° Exhibit 19 ig a photostatic copy of . the ‘Holland “Dutch”’ waterproof paint label (Re- quest 32¢b), RA; 156-157). Exhibit 20 is a color chart: . at one time employed by said’ concern (RA. 157). — Exhibit 21 is a paint folder (RA. 157). This company — ‘and respondent ‘had a conflict in the Patent Office, and respendent did not require this company td dis- | continue the words ‘Holland Dutch” to describe waterproof paint (RA. 157-158), Exhibit 133 is-a ~ Pervo Holland Dutch labél (RA: 553). Respondent Oe ‘ 7 . ° be . é . 7 . ,—— *, had no evidence. of confusion in’ connection with ° - Peryo’s use of Holland Dutch, and its use: is current _ on waterproof - stucco paint (RA. 728).-Walter J. 'Schulps, a salesman for respondent (RA. 1972) had “seen this label in Bakersfield, Taft and Oilville, a ~ suburb. of Bakersfield (RA. 2015). Charles W. Collins, another salesman for respondent (RA, 2049- 2050) had been employed by Pervo Company and sold “Holland, Dutch”’ paint in Utah, western Wyoming and caster Idaho (RA. 2118-2119), “This firm used an old Hol-” __land-Duteh | process of making stucco paint ge was | - brought over from Holland (RA. 2183). . “Neu- Dutch’’ by Superior Paint and ye aneaee Cor- of Chicago. . ~ poration, Chicago, and Paint. Exchan “‘Neu-Dutch”” was‘ listed in the 1 Trade Mark " diveetory for. enamel: by. Paint Ex 1ange of Chicago’: (Request 20, RA. 102). “About years prior to the — trial and continuing’ to date,/Superior employed a _ label bearing the trade si e ‘‘Neu-Dutch Enamel Co .? and ‘the’ words “Nef? Diiteh” for endmels* sold by it (Request 35(a) nofdenied, RA. 161), Exhibit 24 is a copy. of a label employ ed by tlits firm for one of: its products (Request 35(b),, RA. 161-162). Justin D. 8 _ Goldman, President of. this firm, testifi fied as to this tise ~ " (RA. 302- 312). 4 This’ firm ‘started as a partnership in 1930 and e aged in the manufacture of paints and’ of ‘*Paint Exchange of Chicago.’ This firmi still had - two stores at the time of the deposition (RA. 308). Exhibit: 79 and 80 are .“‘Neu-Duteh? labels used by be nd re It also ran retail stores under the name * ~ this firm (RAS 304-305). They were presently used and — *had been used since. 1937 (RA. 305). The firm ceased _ se 4 on o - 3 . aad . “ee 4 -_ — Dut oP wsdl re ¥ @ Agae at oe ger the San Francisco stores sold ‘Old , ’’ paints from. the time he started work (RA. 422-423). He confirmed the Uhl Bros, labels (RA. 423- 424). Exhibits 110. and T11 ictures of the San Francisco store showing Dc paints in . <> pyramids (RA. 426-427). Th®'Old Dutch”’ brand of . paints was advertised in the San Francisco Examiner (Exhibits 112 and 113, RA. 427-430). “When Mr. Gray. started. working for this firm, Bass-Heuter, a prede- cessor: of respondgnt, made its paints (RA. 430). The ae “Old Duteh”’ labels and stencils wete applied at the - San Francisco store (RX 433). ny San Francisco store sells the other Uhi- Bros, paints (RA. 436). The sales now average about 50 50 gallons:a month in the San | Francisco store and it ships anaverdte of 100 gallons . a. month (RA,:438-439). Charlés William Blakiston, a .-paint and. wallpaper merchant (RA. 862) sold “Old “Dutch” in the early days when-he’ was on the road (RA. 870). Charles KF, Fay, a hardware merchant in ¢ “Los Angeles (RA. nh ea the Uhl Bras. ‘ ‘Old : Dutch”’ brand (RA. 1323). He had personally known — .of this firm since. 1929 (RA, 1349). Daniel D, Roberts, the Pacifie Coast braneh manager of respondent (RA. 1556) higal heard of Uhl Bros. use of “Old Dutch’”’ ¥ win 1935 and saw the Itbel in Portland: (RA. 1627- 628). Respondént had nw instance of. confusion CON cerning: this brand (RA. 744- -745). aay ‘ “Old Dutch Enamel” by the? Sherwin-Williams Company of Cleveland, Ohio. For a petiod commené- ing.on or about March 20, 1912 and extending nntil fometime. during World War IT, this firm emploved - ' Dutch vermilion. See vermilion,. n1., ‘3. Dutch. white: A pigment consisting of one part of white ledid ‘to three of permanent white. : . “White lead. a A heavy, white, poisonous powder con- ” sisting of basic lead carbonate, usually having the composition 2 PbCOs, Pb(OH),, and forming a most important pigment; ceruse; also the paste . ‘formed by grinding it with oil (white lead in oll). In ‘three important processes of manufacturing & ee ee xxvii white lead, metallic lead is exposed to the action of acetic acid, moisture, and carbon dioxide. Most . ‘used is the old Dutch, or stack, process, in which lead gratings or plates are placed in the upper | ‘part of pots containing the-dilute acid, and the _ 8. pots aré stacked in fermenting tanbark or manure — - . and left for about three months. * * * Vermilion * * * 3. Hence, a red color like the pig- ment; a lively and brilliant red; as, cheeks of ver- milion. Specifie colors are: French avermilian, filed also paprika, a yellowish-red. color of very high. safuration and medium brilliance; Dutch - | : vermilion, a color slightly yellower than cherry * * * C% append D DOLLAR VALUATION oF. v. 8. ‘8. IMPORTS OF PIGMENTS, PAINTS '- AND VARNISHES — THE NETHERLANDS, 1902-58 165,121 $ Pigments Paints ; Cisanie Total PP&V - Linseed Oil. Total PPVAL 19027, $ «4,738 $ 56 $ 4794 9,081 - 35 9.116 . i 13,224 « *8 13,272 1905° 35,765 (143 35,908 ° i ree 28,448 220° 28.668 44,442 S 44,442 * 36,554 251 36,805 3 44,474 10 = 44,484 1910 52,340 117. 52,457 | ¥ 60,619 os 60,619 | _, 53,423. ‘Se 53,423 $ 247,025 50,719. ae 50,719 26,903 es 58,296 : 58,296 3,548 1915 | 209,886 209,886 9,271 423,488 a 423,488 4,208 192,215 192;215 7 19183 TA So feet ee es “ee fg htt 7 Si 117,613 7 } 117,613 _ $2,036 1920 - 378600, 378,600 .- 844,181 187,608 - 187,608 1,036,792 507,537 $$ 8,575 516,112’ - 3,576,179 437,551 31,268 505 469,324" 906,323 . «884,741 43,381 72° = 4281 198,436 - 1925 . 419, 42,147 | 515 462,602 602,767 . 537,570 56,527". 495 594,592 771,324 583,511 70,344 265 654,120 65,205 696,701 64,201 817 761,719 9,341 594:730 88,440 2,996 686,166. 166,806 1930 , 552,218 63,968 4,943. 621,129 78,638 502,037 41,694 ‘S888 552,619 9,537 210,675 50,996 3,103 264,774 212 356,775 ° 247,416 12170 616,361 303,030 304,812 104,052 927 407,8574 103,058 1935 . 363,248 35,385 1,103 399,736 79,417 : 249,775 66,318 1,197 317,290" 264,438 ‘$78,317 30,350 1,379 510,046. 19,737 313,393 32,138 1147 = 346,678" 4,822 30,128 © 1,775 197,024 1,254 xxix Pigments Paints ‘Varnishes Total Pray Linseed 01) Total PPVAL, ig eee —_--- a a 3,146 11,875 = 653 15,674 18 15,692 ee oe joe _° B18 © eseocnsoegen 600d 0 — —i«épw wb COO ¥ : 554 4732 8. + 8286 . ip” ha - 9 8,807 aR, 3,807 1,455,087 «1,458,844 - ‘ 4,983 321 aa "* 5,304 4,447 3,970 1,166 9,833 ee 9,833. * 55,746 10,407 = 1,987 . 68,1405. — 68,140 62,936 7,514" —-17'933 8898s" 88,383 * 9,942 8,709 — - 10,516°\ - 29167 . | 9,167 133,727 8,554 3,938 \ 146,219 ° - 46219 2 238,339. 5,404, 3,960 * 247,703 — 247,703 203,947 .. 4,974 2829 211,750 211,750: 156,104 5,942 352 164,398 464,398 - 239,904 ° 7,415 1,370 248,689 - 248,689 569,556 ——- 7,920 fe 4,058. 581,534 + 58594 ‘Sources : \ : : mae, Foreign. C ommerce and Navigation dt the United States, 1902 issied by Bureau , of Statisties (Tréasury Dept.) ; 1903-10 by Bureau of Statisties (Dept. of Commeree and Labor), and 1911-40 by Bureau of. Foreign and Domestic Commeree ; 1941-46 6 by Bureau of Census (Dept. of: Cotumerce ) . , 7-58, Reports Nos. FT 110 and 120, U.S. Imports of Merchandise ‘for Con- sumption, Dept. . of Commerce, Bureau of Census. | 71902-17, Pigments and paints were listed together as Pigments Paints wid July 1-Dee, 31, 1918. 1902. 17 are fiscal years. 1919 to ‘an are calendar ears. Rev. Stat., See. 336, Jan. 25, 1919. or ‘Total OF separately listed pigments, paints, - varnishes = eee — gives total of $409,791. x. pigments, aa. ms varnishes. from FT 110: FT 120" ‘gives total as! | 165,026 \e --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0251%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.