Anyone know the history of O-So Grape Soda or the company

[SODABOB]

P.S.

The following doesn't explain why they changed names, but it helps establish a copyright date for ...

"O So Good - O So Grape" ~ Chicago, Illinois ~ January 15, 1947

Copyright Office ~ The Library Of Congress ~ Washington 25, D.C. ~ January - June 1947

[ After opening link, use the little (+) zoom in the upper-left corner to read ]


https://books.google.com/books?id=5...v=onepage&q=O So Grape Copyright 1947&f=false

 

[SODABOB]

To Clarify ...

Based on what I've seen ...

1. In 1945 and 1946 100% of the references use the name SO-GRAPE
2. In 1947 the use of SO-GRAPE and O-SO GRAPE is about 50/50 (Transition)
3. In 1948 100% of the references use the name O-SO GRAPE

[ More Research Required ]

 

[SODABOB]

Exception to what I posted earlier / Transition ...

1. O-So Grape - Knox Glass - November 1946 = "Rich In Dextrose"

(The 1946 So-Grape ad I posted earlier also used "Rich In Dextrose" on the bottle.





2. O-So Grape - Parent Company - December 1947 = "O-So Good"

(The "O-So Good" copyright I posted earlier was January 15, 1947)

 

[SODABOB]

The bottle I can't find, but might be fun to look for, and possibly rare, is the So-Grape bottle pictured in this 1945 ad I posted earlier that has ...


"The Taste Tells"

 

[SODABOB]

Where there's an Ad and a Sign that has "The Taste Tells" then there must be a bottle! Right? Well, if there is an actual bottle, I sure can't find one. Notice on the sign where it says "Trade Mark Reg." I can't find a Trademark for So-Grape, either. But if there is one, I bet its dated 1945

 

[SODABOB]

This 1945 Court Case involving So-Grape and NuGrape might have something to do with the name change. As it says in the snippet, its "confusing"

Note: If someone can find the entire document, it might help explain a few things regarding the So-Grape name change to O-So Grape

https://books.google.com/books?id=1...ved=0ahUKEwientn3tIzTAhVpCZoKHQYyDxwQ6AEIGjAA

 

[SODABOB]

I haven't been able to find the entire So-Grape NuGrape document yet, but I did find this snippet that is a continuation of the one in my previous post. I can't say for certain, but the wording sounds as if the judgement was decided in favor of NuGrape. I believe the last (partial) word is con- for conclusion ...

 

[SODABOB]

Here's my take on what the last part might say ...

"as was held by the commissioner, we think, considering both marks as a whole, are confusingly similar and therefore their conclusion is that So-Grape is in violation of copyright infringement.

​?

 

[SODABOB]

P.S.

I forgot to mention/clarify that the two snippets I posted are from two different years. Here they are again in their proper sequence ...

1945

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports:

https://books.google.com/books?id=1...ved=0ahUKEwientn3tIzTAhVpCZoKHQYyDxwQ6AEIGjAA







1947

Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and of the United States Courts in Patent and Trade-mark and Copyright Cases:





https://books.google.com/books?id=P...+NuGrape&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=So+Grape+



Footnote:

Is it a coincidence or a connection that this occurred in 1947?


Copyright Office ~ The Library Of Congress ~ Washington 25, D.C. ~ January - June 1947

"O So Good - O So Grape" ~ Chicago, Illinois ~ January 15, 1947

https://books.google.com/books?id=50...201947&f=false

 

[SODABOB]

One clue leads to another / I just found this ...

Note: I was wrong in that con- was "conclusion." Its "concurrent"


1946


http://www.leagle.com/decision/1946675154F2d521_1504/NATIONAL NUGRAPE CO. v. JUDGE & DOLPH


Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Patents affirmed the decision of the examiner, 62 U.S.P.Q. 189, on the ground that the word "Grape" is descriptive of the goods of both parties and aside from that word no similarity existed between the marks as a whole sound, appearance or meaning. The commissioner pointed out that the dominating feature of the trade-mark cannot be a descriptive word, so that purchasers would look to the prefixes "So-" and "Nu" as indicating origin of the respective goods. From that decision, this appeal was taken.

Appellee's mark appears in two lines, the first syllable and the hyphen appearing above the word "Grape," which is disclaimed. The mark of appellant is a compound word "NuGrape" in a kind of heavy script, underscored with a line which bears the legend "A Flavor You Can't Forget". The legend was disclaimed.

There is no question that the goods possess the same descriptive properties and that the word "Grape" as applied to the goods is descriptive. It is established law that a descriptive word cannot constitute the dominant part of a mark. American Brewing Company, Inc., v. Delatour Beverage Corporation, etc., 100 F.2d 253, 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 778. Clearly the word "Grape" by itself cannot indicate origin in any particular source. The prefixes "So-" and "Nu", while unlike in sound, meaning, if any, and appearance, as was held by the commissioner, we think, considering both marks as a whole, are confusingly similar and therefore their concurrent use is likely to deceive purchasers.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is reversed.