Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
321 F.2d 577 (1963)


Facts

In 1907, King-Seeley Thermos Co. (Thermos Co.) (plaintiff) began advertising the term “Thermos” to describe its vacuum-insulated bottle for food and beverages. Initially, Thermos Co. made no attempt to designate the term Thermos as an indicator of the source of the product, and over the years the word came to be understood by consumers as a generic term to describe the product category of vacuum-insulated bottles. In 1923, after realizing that the Thermos trademark was in danger of becoming generic, Thermos Co. undertook a campaign to identify Thermos as a trademark. The campaign failed, however, and by 1950, the word “thermos” had become nearly synonymous with a vacuum-insulated bottle and was not widely viewed as a trademarked indicator of source by the consuming public. Aladdin Industries, Inc. (Aladdin) (defendant) developed its own vacuum-insulated bottles to be sold as thermos bottles. Thermos Co. brought a trademark-infringement suit against Aladdin to enjoin the use of the Thermos trademark. Aladdin argued that the term thermos had become generic when used in connection with vacuum-insulated bottles and that Thermos Co. was no longer entitled to trademark rights in the term. The district court held in favor of Aladdin, finding that thermos had become a generic term for vacuum-insulated bottles and could no longer be registered as a trademark. Thermos Co. appealed the decision.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.