...C.i:.(&cnuL.. LAW BOOKS .'^7 So. Sptiag U.. Room 210 Ml'rual ^r^ THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL or LAW V The Law of Trademarks ^ Tradenames and Unfair Competition Including Trade Secrets; Goodwill; The Federal Trademark Acts of 1870. 1881 and 1905; The Trademark Registration Acts of the States and Terri- tories; and the Canadian Trademark and Design Act; with Forms By JAMES LOVE HOPKINS THIRD EDITION Cincinnati THE W. H. ANDERSON COMPANY 1917 T 1917 C'OrYRIC.IlT. lit 17 nv THE \V. II. ANDERSON COMPANY INTRODUCING THE THIRD EDITION With the present revision this book becomes the first Amer- ican text on the subject to attain a third edition. This fact would have been im]iossible had it not been for the generous use given the earlier editions by the judges and lawyers of this country, and for the many and kindly suggestions and criticism from my professional brethren which have lightened my labors, all of which I take equal pride and ])leasure in here acknowledging. A quarter of a century has elapsed since I first ventured upon the literature of this division of the law, and engaged in its practice. I trust that these pages may reflect to the reader something of the fascination and charm the subject has ever had for the author. JAMES LOVE HOPKINS. Chemical Building, St. Louis. December 1, 1916. Ui GG^S? AUTHOR'S NOTE (FROM I UK SKCONI) KDI'I'ION.) Froude, in his essay on the Science of History, said, "Opin- ions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity.'' In the law of trademarks is contained the first recognition by the courts of the princ'ij)le that no man sliould be permitted to pass off his goods as those of another. Does the fact that this department of our law is of so recent origin import that, in the past, English speaking traders were more honest in their dealings? The answer to that question must be looked for in the pages of history. Even if Napoleon was correct in his assertion that history was "but a fiction agreed upon," it con- tains the only evidence available for our jjurpose. Further- more, Buckle's theory that history, though conflicting as to the character and achievements of individuals, is still har- monious as to the manners of a given period, leads us to be- lieve that the authors to whom we purpose to briefly refer may, for the purpose of our inquiry, be deemed authoritative. Writing of the conditions existing in England during the Anglo-Saxon period, Hume says "Whatever we may imagine concerning the usual truth and sincerity of men who live in a rude and barbarous state, there is much more falsehood, and even perjury among them, than among civilized nations; virtue, which is nothing but a more enlarged and more cul- tivated reason, never flourishes to any degree, nor is founded on steady principles of honour, except where a good education becomes general ; and where men are taught the pernicious consequences of vice, treachery and immorality. Even super- stition, though more prevalent among ignorant nations, is but a poor supply for the defects in knowledge and educa- tion ; our European ancestors, who employed every moment the expedient of swearing on extraordinary crosses, and relics, were less honourable in all engagements than their posterity, Vi Al'TIIOR S N'OTE. wlio, from oxprriciu'c, liavf oiuittcd tli<»s(» iiicfTrc'tual securi- ties. This ^'t'lM'fal proiuMU'ss to ix-rjiiry was fiim-li iiuTcased by the usual want of (lisconmuMit in jiul^'cs. wlio could not disi'uss an intrirati' ovidcnco. and were oldij^oil to number, not weijrh. the testimony of the witnesses. " Daniel I)e Foe (whom Taine describes as "one of those indefati^'al)Ie labourers aiul obstinate eond)atants, who. ill- treatetl. «'aluniniatrd. imprisoiied. sucfcrdcd l>y tlieir upright- ness, eommon sense, and enerjry in ^'aininj; Kn^rland over to their side") p»d)lished in 172") and 1727 his book. "The Com- plete Enplish Tradesman." in wliitli he treats of the ethics of En^'lish trade. In that W(»rk he refers to the "shop rhe- toriek" and "tlux of falsehoods" used by tradesmen in dispos- ing of their wares, and the connnon practice of keeping on hand a bap of si)urious or debased coin from which to make eljange. Charles Lamb said this work was "of a vile and debasing tendency." The French critic is prol)ably the bet- ter judge of Dc Foe. In 1859 Herbert Spencer in his essay on "The Morals of Trade," treats of the ethics of the same tradesmen more than a century later. He refers to "the often-told tale of adul- terations," and .says, "It is not true, as many suppose, that only the lower classes of llie commercial world are guilty of fraudulent dealing. Those above them are to a great extent blameworthy. On the average, men who deal in bales and tons differ biit little in morality from men who deal in yards and pounds. Illicit praetiees of every form and shade, from venial deception up to all but direct theft, nuiy be brought home to the higher grades of our commercial world. Tricks innumerable, lies acted or uttered, elaborately-devised frauds, are prevalent; many of them established as 'customs of the trade': nay. not only established, but defended. • • • We cannot here enlarge on the not uncommon trick of using false trademarks, or of imitating another maker's wrappers. • • • Omitting the highest mercantile classes, a few of the less eommon trades, and those exceptional cases where an entire command of the market has been obtained, the uniform testimony of competent judges is. that success is incompatible with strict integrity. To live in the commercial world it author's note. vii appears necessary to adopt its ("thical code;; immIIht exceeding nor falling short of it— neither being less lioiiest nor more honest. Tiiose who sink below its standard are expelled; while those who rise above it are either ])ulled down to it or ruined. As, in self-defense, the civilized man becomes savage among savages; so it seems that in self-defense, the scrupulous trader is obliged to become as little scrupulous as his com- petitors. It has i)een said that the law of the animal creation is_'eat and be eaten'; aiul of our trading community it may similarly be said that its law is— cheat and be cheated. A system of keen competition, carried on, as it is, without adequate moral restraint, is very much a system of commer- cial cannibalism. Its alternatives are — use the same weapons as your antagonists or be conquered and devoured." If the statements of those three writers are to be accepted as evidence, and they would seem to be the best evidence, as to the ethics of trade in England at the several periods re- ferred to, it would appear that the present condition of trade as to fairness in competition is far more wholesome. That bettered condition must be attributed largely to the judicial evolution of the principles treated in this book. In this conclusion, the author is supported by Sir Frederick Pollock. In his First Book of Jurisprudence he says, "Rules of law may Avell have, in particular circumstances, an effec- tive influence in maintaining, reinforcing, and even elevating the standard of current morality. The moral ideal present to lawgivers and judges, if it does not always come up to the highest that has been conceived, will at least be, generally speaking,, above the common average of practice; it will rep- resent the standard of the best sort of citizens. This is especially the case in matters of good faith, whether we look to commercial honesty or to relations of personal confidence. With few exceptions, the law has, in such matters, been con- stantly ahead not only of the practice but of the ordinary pro- fessions of business men." Ethical evolution and organic evolution alike are accom- plished slowly, and the possibilities of each are alike limitless. From the days when the Anglo-Saxon judges numbered the witnesses because of inability to weigh their testimony, to the Vin AUTHOR S NOTE. era wliou the requirement of fairness in trade was established, the English-speaking ])eople have made immeasurable ethical l)ri)gress. To that progress, the science of law has made many contributions, and has been indispensable. We are dealing in the subjects comprised in this book witii the highest ethical development of that wiiicii we term the common law. The standard set for the regulation of com- petition by the modern decisions evidences the high degree of ethical development of the modern judiciary. It is not to be expected that all of the decisions should reach the same alti- tude as the foremost. To say this, is merely to say that the judges who wrote the opinions were not of equal ability and learning. It is impossible that they should be. But on the whole, the body of cases with which we here deal, forms the most convincing proof which we have of the steady improve- ment of the morals of trade, and the gradual extinction of that "commercial cannibalism" of which Spencer wrote less than fifty years ago. It is doubtful whether jurisprudence has, during any corresponding period in the world's history, been of greater value to the advancement of civilization than it has in dealing with the subjects here considered, during the past half century. It is a remarkable fact that in this department of the law which has. less than any other, been hampered by statutes and precedents, and which, more than any other, rests uiK)n a foundation purely ethical, there should be found so great har- mony between so many independent jurisdictions, English and American. Such legislation as has been effected in the United States has been desultory and comparatively ineffective. Its most admirable quality is its non-interference with common- law trademark rights. In submitting this more comprehensive work to the pro- fession, it is a subject of gratification to the author that his former book entitled "The Law of Unfair Trade" has been so generally accepted, and used as a working tool. The present work, it is hoped, will be found more adequate. The late cases have been exhaustively dealt with. The addition of the statutes and forms for registration employed in the several states and territories, and the Dominion of Caiuida, is intended AUTHOR S NOTES. IX to facilitate the business of the practitioner, in registration and litigation outside of the state in which he resides. The forms of pleading liave been added to from the best sources. The recently enacted federal trademark act, together with the rules and forms prescribed by the Commissioner of Patents for the registration of trademarks and patent office i)ractice under the act, is reproduced in the appendix. Mobile the acts of 1870 and 1881 have been preserved, with their annotations. THE AUTnOR. St. Louis, October 1, 1905, CONTENTS CIIAPTKK I. PREFATORY. SECTION. I'ACJK. 1. Primitive mercliandiae inaikH I 2. The neod of lt'j;al n-straiiit of unfair tradi- -i 3. Trademark di-fiiu'd '^ 4. Tradename defined 10 5. Earliest reco^Miition ol trademarkH l'> 0. The evolution of llu- law of trademarks 10 7. Tlie relative protection given l)y patents and trademarks KJ 8. Trademarks distinguishcvl from patents and copyriglits 17 9. Function 1' 10. Nature of the right to a trademark IB 11. The test of exclusivenesa 20 12. Requisites of a valid trademark 20 13. Perpetual existence , 21 14. Territorial limiLdtion 21 15. The necessity of user .• • 2r> 16. How trademark rights may be acquired 26 17. Trademarks as subject of sale, assignment or becjuest 27 18. A8signal)ility of distillery brands and the like 38 19. Unfair competition '-^^ 20. Historical 40 21. Property right as the basis of the action for unfair competition. 4r> 22. Unfair competition distinguished from trademark infringement. 47 23. Trade slander and libel •">'^ 24. Are trademark rights monopolistic in ,"haracter ? .')(> 25. Title 57 26. Licenses '"'^ 27. Trademarks as subjects of taxation 60 CHAPTER n. THE ACQUISITION OF A TRAE>EI\1ARK. 28. Who may acquire ,. • 61 29. User 63 30. Affixing the mark , 6.1 31. Registration not a means of acquiring 65 32. Acquisition by assignment 67 33. Acquisition by an alien f>'^ 34. Priority of appropriation 69 35. Acquisition of the right to use the name of another 73 xi .\ii CONTK.NTS. niAl'TKli III. WHAI lONSTriTTKS A VALID TltADKM Ai;K SECTION. PAGE. :UJ. Tlu* jri-noral rulf 75 .{7. It must In- truthful 75 38. A dislionost luhi-l will invalidate 7ii 30. Tlie cast's of false representation in connection with trademarks. 78 40. Manhattan M«'dicine ("o. v. Wood 80 41. The .similar eases — Assij,'nment must be made jjulilie in con- junetittn with the trade mark, wlu-n 81 42. Unautliori/.i'd use of words "patent" or "patented" 81 43. Use of such word as a trademark wlicn' then- has been a patent. 84 44. The effect of expiration of the patent upon the collocation of color used in the patented article 87 45. Names of patented articles 88 46. Generic term, delined 93 47. Illustrations of ;,'fneri<. t«'rm8 98 48. E.xamples of valid trademarks, fancy, arbitrarj' or distinctive words 114 49. Generic terms judicially defined 132 50. Marks common to the trade 134 51. The name ;;iven an unpatented invention by the inventor 130 52. Necessary name of a product 13(» 53. The tradtmark<-d article not a trademark 139 )4. Paekafzes as tradi-marks 140 )5. Pictures as tradt-marks 141 )6. Words as trademarks 141 w . Method of arran^jinj,' fjoods as trademark 142 ")8. Words taken from the dead lan<,aia^'es 143 ■>9. Words and phrases from modern foreign languages 143 60. Words become generic through use 148 61. The use of generic nanus protected 149 62. "Distinctive names," under the Food and Drugs Act (June 30, 190U, Chap. 3015, 34 Stat, at L. 7(18 154 63. Systems of licensing and inspection of goods mad from a basic ingredient bearing a trademark 155 64. The teat of "origin or ownership" 157 05. Geographical names 159 66. Ah employed l)y sole owner of a natural product and its place of production 160 67. When geographical names will be protected as trademarks 160 68. Gef)graphical names — The underlying principle 161 09. A falw gef»gTaphieal name vitiates trademark 165 70. The right to eom|)lain of unfair use of geographical name 166 71. When relief will be granted against fraudulent use of geograph- ical names 167 72. Proper numes as trademark 168 CONTENTS. Xlll SEX3TI0N. TAOK. 73. "Secondary meaning" doctrine a|)i)li(>d to proper names 1(J!) 74. Namea of celebrities 170 75. In general, of one's own name , 171 76. The use of proper namea in trade 172 77. The proper name cases classified 174 78. Fictitious proper names 1K2 79. Revocation of license to use one's own name 182 80. Corporate names ,. . . IH'.i 81. Names of unincorporated associations .... A'. 190 82. "Secondary meanin-j;" defined 190 83. Words of double meaning 194 84. The mark'L validity to be judged as of the date of its adoption . . 195 CHAPTER IV. TRADEMARK RIGHTS IN TITLES OF BOOKS, PERIODICALS AND PLAYS. 85. Trademark in title of a book 196 86. Trademark in title of periodical 198 87. Play titles as trademarks 202 88. Infringement of book titles and play titles by motion picture titles 204 CHAPTER V. THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT TO A TRADEMARK'S USE. 89. Laches 206 90. Laches and acquiescence distinguished 208 91. Acquiescence 209 92. Caution notices to infringers as evidence of acqiiiscence 210 93. Abandonment 210 CHAPTER VI. GOODWILL. 94. Defined 218 95. In particular cases 221 96. As a subject of sale 225 97. Goodwill subject to proceedings in eminent domain 229 98. Goodwill in its relation to firm and other names 229 99. Rights of vendor 230 100. Right of vendee to reassign 233 101. Covenants not to re-engage in business 233 102. The valuation of goodwill 23S 103. Competition between vendor and vendee 239 104. Partnership goodwill 243 105. Remedies 245 106. Breach of covenant not to re-engage 247 107. Remedy as to infringement of tradenames identified with good- will 252 Xiv CONTT-rNTS. ("llAriHU \ 11. T1L\I)K SKCKKTS; KKMIT t>F 1MMVA( Y. S»XTIOX. PAOE. IdS. Trndo w-cn'tH^lntrodvutory 2ri3 Un». I'r<>tn in .iiuity 255 110. TrH(l«nuirks «)H jinxluctM of wrtTrt jinn'ortwH '265 111. Actions unil drft-nm-H . . 266 112. The riglit of privacy 267 CIIAPTEK \ ill. inkuin<;i:.mi:nt. 1 i;j. Of infrinpomont ponorally 279 1 14. No trademark in form, si/A', nmttTiul or color 280 1 1.".. The early adjudications 283 1 1(5. Infringement of color 284 1 17. Infringement of size and form — Distinctive dress 287 118. Intent and scienter 293 119. What persons lial)le , 295 120. Of lahels, generally 296 121. Of packages, generally 297 122. The engraver or manufacturer of tlie lalx>l 298 123. Of counterfeiting trademarks 300 124. Of imitation of trademarks , 300 125. C'oloralile imitation 300 126. The test of prohaliility of di-ception 301 127. The degree of resemldance which constitutes infringement 302 128. The degree of care expected of the purcliaser 304 129. Infringement must he l>y use on same class of goods 307 130. The value of proof of fraudulent intent 310 131. The manner of establishing fraudulent intent 311 132. Infringing hy refilling trademarked packages 313 133. Packages distinguished from their contents 314 134. Infringenn-nt hy refitting and reselling worn trademarked artieh-s . . . . " 315 135. Infringement hy applying a manufacturer's trach mark to goods of his to which he does not iiittiid its a])pru'!itinn 315 130. Substitution ,. . . 317 137. The tiBe of misleading signs and circulars 319 138. Infringement by a non-identical word or mark 321 139. Patent oflice rulings on similarity of alleged conflicting marks. . 330 140. MiKcellaneotis matters relating to infringement 330 141. The use of letters and numerals 33S 142. The judicial t«'st of infringement 342 143. Kestraint of us*- of misleading a CHAPTER IX. REGISTRATION. 160. Introductory . . » 378 161. The invalid registration acts 378 162. The power of congress to jjrotect trademarks 379 163. The constitutionality of the present registration act 37'* 164. The advantages of registration 384 1G5. The disadvantages of registration 386 166. Interferences 388 167. Between a registrant and an applicant 388 168. The preliminary statement 389 169. The issues in interference, opposition and cancellation pro- ceedings 389 CHAPTER X. COURTS, PARTIES AND PROCEDURE. 170. Introductory 391 171. Jurisdiction of United States District Courts 391 172. Jurisdiction of the state courts 395 173. Jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission 396 174. The eh>ments whereon jurisdiction must be predicated 398 175. The parties plaintiff 399 176. The parties defendant , 402 177. Forms of action 40.1 CHAPTER XI. THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION— FEDERAL AND STATE. 178. The Act of 1876 407 179. Section 3449, Revised Statutes , 408 180. Criminal liability at common law 410 181. Tlie penal statutes of the several states 411 xvi coNirrNTs. ClIAl'TKH XII. ACTIONS Al LAW HFATION. I'AOE. 1S2. Til.- form of notion 412 183. T\h- (l.olaration 4i:{ 184. I)»-f»>nm'« 417 183. L)am»gv» ....418 ("IIAPTHK XIII. THK ACTION IN Ki^ ITY. 180. The liapJH of i><|uital>I<- jurirtdiotion 424 187. Tin- bill in t-iiuity . . 42H 188. Tri-wntin;,' tho «l.fenm'8 432 189. The nnswj-r 4:{:{ 15)0. rarticulars 434 101. Soandal and imp«'rtint'nc(» * . . . 43."» 1!>2. Till- di-ft-nsos in oquity 43rt l!t3. The n-Iiof in t'<|iiity 451 194. Till- dirn-i' in unfair competition caws as to tho accounting 458 19'). Forbidding puldic-ation of tht- di-croi* 460 196. H«'>itrainin<; niitiri'j)n'st'ntationa concerning; the decree 460 197. I'unitive damufies in ifjuity 460 198. Increas*- of damages in equity 4(il 199. The defendant's credits upon accountinjj 401 200. Label designing as a judicial function 462 201. Appeals 464 202. Certiorari 46.') CllAPTKR XIV. MATTERS OF PRACTICK AM) FVIDENCE. 203. Matters of which courts will take judicial notice 467 204. E.vpert and other evidence on the qui-stion of infringement 467 20.'». Successive changes, approach to plaintilY's dress 470 206. Exhibits , 470 207. Discovery 471 208. Evidence of recognition by others of plaintill's riu'ht to tiie mark. 472 209. Cont«mpt8 473 210. AfTidavits 470 211. The taking of testimony 477 212. EflTeet of former adjudication 48S ClIAPTEH XW COSTS. 213. Oenerally 490 214. Aviiiding c«)HtH by HubnuKsion 490 21.'). SulmiiMsion to avoid costH must lie complete 492 216. C4i). or). AlfT V. Ha.liim (77 Tex. r»30). 107. Allen V. MiCartliy (37 .Minn. 347 > . f.-i. .')(»!». V. MoK<>en (I Sumn. l27()-314), 20!». V. Walton Wood & Metal Co. (178 Fed. Tvep. '287 ) , 17S. Allen B. Wrisl.y Co. v. Buck (9") Off. (Jaz. 24S;)i, 330. V. Geo. K. Rouse Soap Co. (87 Fed. Rep. 589), 286, 290. V. Iowa Soap Co. ( 104 Fed. Rep. r.48i, 108. V. Iowa Soap Co. (i\'.} C. C. A. 541. 108. V. Iowa Soap Co. ( 122 Fed. Uej). 796), 48. Allegheny Fertilizer Co. v. Wood- side (Fed. Case No. 20(i), 98, 120. 143. 34.-). Allepretti v. All.-<:n'tti Cliocolate Cream Co. ( 177 111. 12!>l, 28. Allepretli ChfK-olate Cn-ani Co. v. Keller (85 Fed. Rep. 643), 52, 176, 307. Alpin V. HiclmriU (2(1 K. P < '. 7'M\>. 331. Aluminum ('(M)kiii;; rtcn-^i! Co. v. National Aluminum Works (226 Fed. Rep. SI. I, SI7 I. 131, 3((2, 332. Ameriean Bmtk ('«». v. TJates (85 Fid. Rrp 729-734). 54. Ameriean Box Co. v. C'rosman '57 F.-d. Kep. 1021, 1029), 454. n, to i>ii08. American Stay Co. v. Delaney (211 Mass. 229), 257. .\ineriean Stove Co. v. l)), 4, 5, 7, 77, 98, 157, 340, 341, 342. Anargyros v. Egyptian Aniasis Ci- garette Co. (150 X. Y. Supp. 626), 326. Anargyrop & Co. v. Anargyros ( 167 Fed. Rep. 753, 769 ) , 452. Anderson v. Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. (45 L. T. N. S. 757- 758), 54. 106. V. Rowland (18 Te.x. Civ. App. 460), 251. Andrew Jergens Co. v. Woodlmry (133 0. G. 513), .567. Andrew McLean Co. v. Adams Mfg. Co. (31 App. D. C. 509), 131, 569. arv (u pages. Angle V. Chicago, etc., Railway Co. (151 V. S. 1), 364. Angier v. Wehlier (92 .\m. Dee 7541, 247. V. Webber (11 Alien, 211), 240. Anglo-SwisH Condensed Milk Co. v. Metcalf (I.. R. 31 Cli. I). 454 i , 321. Anhenser-BuHeh Brewing Assn. v. Clarke (26 Fed. Rep. 410), 286, 296, 337. V. Pisa (23 Blatelif. 245), 159. V. Piza (24 Fed. Rep. 149-151), 167, .307, 337. V. Yuengling & Son ( 129 O. G. 3501), 573. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co. v. Fred Miller Brewing Co. (87 Fed. Rep. 864), 52, l.-)2, 168. Ansell V. Gaubert (Seton (4th Ed.) 235), 256. -Apollinaris Brunnen v. Somborn (14 Blatchf. 380), 324. Apollinaris Co. v. Brumler (Man- ual, 429), 290. V. Ilerrfeldt (4 P. R. 478), 115, 324. V. Moore (Cox, Manual, Case Xo. 675), 115. V. Norrish (33 L. T. N. S. 242), 61, 115. Apollinaris Co. (Ltd.) v. Scherer (23 Blatchf. 459,, 115, 402. Apollo Bros. V. Perkins (207 Fed. 530), 367. Appeal of the Putnam Nail Co. (Cox, Manual, No. 725), 490. Applebee v. Skiwanek ( 140 X. Y. S. 4.50), 257. Annington V. Palmer (21 R. I 109), 14, 15, 184. Armistead v. Blackwell ( 1 Off. Gaz. 603), 32, 120, 507, 512. V. Kleinhaus (82 Ky. 303), 37, 213. 401. XXII TAHLi; OK C'ASt>i. Arm itiik Ut fm nrt s a Arinstr«)i)^' v. Ritn«r (71 M«l. US- 1-27). 222. 24.». Arm-troiif: A (\>. v. Snvnnimli Soap UorkH (:.:< FihI. Hrp. 124.. 40.M. Arni>tr. ft. 811. 123. Arnnd.ll v. H.ll ( .V2 L. .1. iMi. -).S7 I . 224. ABlH'Btoiu' Co. V. I'liilip Cany Mfj,'- Co. (41 Ap|». 1). C. ■"><»7). rM\. AslwstoK & AxlM'tic Co. V. Win. Sdntt-r Co. (IS Rap. .lud. i}\u'. c. s. :u;n i . !)<». Aphlcy V. Dixon (4S N. V. 4.WI ) , .3(i.'). A. Stfin \ Co. V. Lihcrty (!artfr Co. (1!IS F.a. K.-p. !>.-)«»). 127. Aptor V. \V«'8t 82(1 Str. Realty Co. (1.V2 N. Y. s. (i:n ». :i.")(}. :{ti7. Atkin8 V. Moon- (142 « >. C .')71». .^>74. Atkinson v. Atkinson (8.") I>. 'J'. .lour. 22!1). 404. 44.S. V. .lolin K. Dolicrty & Co. (121 Midi. :{72). 27:i. Atlanta v. Cliattaiioo;ia Kouri(iry & Pipi'works (127 l''<(S. Atlan AHBiirancf Co. v. Atlas Insnr- an«<' Co. (112 N. W . R. p. 2;<2 i , 22, ll.V AtlBH Mf^'. Co. V. Stn.t &. Smitli (122 C. C. A. .')(18), 205. AtwKttr V. Cahtncr (.'12 C. C. A. 77), 100. Anliin v. H. 318. 341. 424. V. Wilson (20 K.-d. R.-p. S.'iU-S.'iO i , 44!i. 40.".. ,\v.narius v. Korii.-ly ( 121 N. W . R.-p. 330 I. 117. V. Korii.ly ( 13'.) Wis. 247), 00. Ay.r V. Hall (3 Rn-wst. .".0!)). 241. V. Riislitoii (7 Daly, !• , , 100. 6 Ral.i.itt V. Brown ((18 Hun. .'.1.'.), 13. 33.".. Rac-li.-ld(-r A (<.. v. Racli.l.l.r (220 Mass. 1731, 232. Racku- \. laylor ( S4 in.l. .".03). 24.-.. B. A. Corliin A S..n v. Mill.-r. Kohl- h<-pp. Cri.'s.' A Co. (!IH OIF. (la/.. 148.-.). .300. Bajrhy A Riv.-rs C... v. Rivers (87 Md. 400). 2.33, 2.34, 244. Ba;:l.-y v. IVddi.- (10 N. Y. 4(iO). 24 C. Ba. 181), KUi. 17), ir)0. Baldwin v. (Jrit-r Bros. Co. (21") Fed. Rep. 73"), 737), 2!»3, 3(1!). V. Von Mifhcroiix (2") N. Y. Supp. 8r)7), 28, 38, 2(i3, 401. Ball V. l{ost (135 Fed. I{cp. 434, 437), 23, 353. V. Broadway Bazaar (87 N. K. Rep. 074), 1)0. V. Sii-. v. Detroit Stove Works (31 .\j.p. 1). (;. .304), 123. Basket Stores v. Allen (Neb.) (155 N. \V. |{ep. 803), 300. Hass V. Dawher (1!) L. T. N. S. ()20i, 400. V. (Jufigenlieiiner (00 Fed. Rep. 271), 438, 401. V. Henry Zeltner Brewing Co. (87 Fed. Rep. 408), 310. V. Henry Zeltner Brew. ('o. (37 C. C. A. 355), 310. Bass, Rateliir & Cretton (Ltd.) v. Feinjcnspan ^00 Fed. Rep. 200- 211). 10, .308, 333. 337, 441, 442. Bassett V. I'ereival (87 Mass. (5 Allen), 345-347), 231. Batcheller v. Thomson (35 C. C. A. 532), 00. V. Thcmison (80 Fed. Rej). 630), 31, 37, 241. Mat<1. Hop. 144). 8l». lieadlrtiton & Wtn-rz v. I'tMiki- Hn-w- iiip l"o. (20 V. ('. A. 4().'. I. S, io:>, itir). Boakin v. Stantt>n (;l Ff4. Bell V. Ellis (.33 Cal. «;2()-<>2r)), 219. V. Locke (8 Pai-je, 75), 41, 126, 199, 202. Bell 4 Bopart Soap Co. v. Petrolia Mfp. Co. (54 X. Y. Supp. 0(53- 666), 261, 262. Benbow v. Low ( L. R. 10 Ch. I). 931, 472. Bender v. Enterprise Mfj,'. Co. (S4 C. C. A. 353). 315. Benedictus V. Sullivan (12 R. P. C. 251, 326. Benjamin Moore & Co. v. Auwell (1.58 Fed. Rep. 4«2), 453. Benkert v. Feder (34 Fed. Hep. 534), 429, 455, 4.56, 893, 901. Bennett v. MeKinley (65 Fed. Rep. .505 1, 96, 105, 193, 194. V. White (W. N., 1910, p. 107), 434. Benton v. Ward (59 F.-d. Rep. 411- 413 I, 201. Berpamini v. Bantien (35 La. Ann. OU), 231. Berliner Brauerei r.es«-ll»cliaft v. Kniplit (W. N., 1883, p. 70), 130. Bernstein v. Danwit/. ( 190 Fed. Rep. 004). .581. Iliekinore Call Cure Co. v. Karni* ( 134 Fed. Rep. 833). 51. V. Kariis Mfp. Co. (126 Fed. Rep. .573), 469. Hiphie Bros. & Co. v. Blutlienthal & Bickart (126 (). O. 1063), .573. Billiken Co. v. Baker & Bennet Co. (174 Fed. Rep. 829), 116, 440. Hinpliam Seliool v. (Jray ( 122 N. ( ar. 099), 175. Hininper v. Clark (00 Marb. 113), 244. Hinninper v. Wattles (28 How. l*r. 206). 108, 174. Hinns v. Vitapraph Co. (132 N. Y. S. 2371. 278. Rirniinphan' N'inepar Rrewery Co. v. Pow.U (L. R., 1897, A. C. 710), 206. Hischoirscheim v. Baltzer (10 FVd. Rep. 1), 485. Hissell Chilled Plow Works v. T. M. Bissell Plow Co. (121 Fed. Rep. 357, 364), 20. Hlaek v. Allen (42 Fed. Rep. (518. 023), 4.30. Hlaek V. Ehrich (44 Fed. Rep. 794), 102, 197, 205. Hlacklook v. U. S. (208 U. S. 75), 410. Hlaekwell v. .\rnii.stea), 71. HIcas* V. Carlin^itoii (02 U. S. 1), 47S. 47!l. lUofk V. Staiidaril Distilling,' & Dis- trilnitiiif,' Co. (D") F«'(l. H«'p. 07S), r.2. 4:?n. Blocto V. Simon ( 1!> Alil). \. C. 88), (12, r)00. niofifid V. I'ayn.- (4 H. & Ad. 410), 338, 412, 422, 442. Blogjr V. Anderson (X. S. \V. 21 L. R. Kq. 238), 217. Bloss V. HJooin.T (23 Hail). ()04 ) , 4 IS. Blutlu-nthal v. Molilmann (48 Fia. 321), 32!). Boardman v. Moriden Britannia Co. (3.> Conn. 402), 330, 341, 442. Board of Trade v. L. A. Kinsey Co. (130 Fed. Rep. oOT, 513), 3()(>. Bodofja Co. (Ltd.) v. Owens (23 L. R. Jr. 371), 418. Boossneck v. Iselin (82 N. V. Sujip. 1G4), 334. Boggs V. Friend (W. Va.) (87 S. E. Rep. 873), 247. Bolander V. Peterson (130 111. 21.")), 112. Bol,on & Byrne Mfg. Co. v. Jonasch (GO X. Y. Supp. 5;").-)), 312. Bond V. Milhourn (20 W. R. 107), 20. Bondier v. Depatie (3 Dorion, 233), 340. Bonnie & Co. v. Bonnie Bros. (Ky.) (160 S. W. Rop. 871), 116. Boon V. Moss (70 X. Y. 465), 220. Boord V. Huddart (21 R. P. C. 140), 13.-). Boord & Son v. Thom & Cameron, T.d. (24 R. P. C. 607, at pages 720, 721), 73. h'vfcrcnciH (irr to /«/(/< v. HooKing \. Durniaii ( 133 X. \. S. 010), .{(iO. Booth V. .Jarrett (.'.2 How. i'r. 100 i , 180, 212. Bordt'H Ice Cream Co. v. Borden CondenHed Milk Co. (201 PVd. 510), 307. Bortliwiek v. Evening I'ost ( L. H. 37 Ch. D. 440), 202. Boston Diatite (!o. v. PMorenco Mfg. Co. (114 Mass. 00), 10, 273, 204. Boston El. Ry. Co. v. Cirace & Hyde Co. (50 C. C. A. 320), 414. Bourlier v. Macauley (01 Ky. 135), 365. Bourne v. Swan & Edgar (1003) (1 Ch. 211), 460. Bout<'lle V. Smith (110 .Mass. Ill), 242. Bowden v. Randolph Tp. (41 N. J. Law, 462), 73(). Bowman v. Floyd (85 Mass. 76), 11. Boynton v. Shaw Stocking Co. (146 Mass. 210), 55. Boyson v. Thorn (08 Cal. 578), 365. Bozon V. Farlow ( 1 Mer. 459 ) , 224. Bradhury v. Barden (35 Conn. 577), 225. V. Beeton (.39 L. J. Ch. 57), 202. V. Dickens (27 Beav. 53), 32. Bradford v. Belknap Co. (105 Fed. Rep. 63, 66 J, 454. V. Peckham (0 R. I. 250-253), 231, 239. Bradley v. X'orton (33 Conn. l.")7), 118. Braham v. Beachim (7 Ch. D. 848 i . 01. V. Bustard (1 H. & M. 447), 121. 143. 215, 301. V. Bustard (0 L. T. X. S. 190), 279. TAIU.1-: «>K (AShX. Iha H(ir h'l III! nrtK nir In jmifrs. I'.riiii.lntli \ I.Hiic- (S Pai;,'.'t. 27:i. i hn.wii Clioniioal Co. v. M.-vcr (31 Urant v. Fr«N'lioli ( 4!> N. •'. I.a". •XU\\. I'Mh HrHHH \ Iron Workn v. I'aync (.'»() Ohio St. n:>i. 240. 244. Uranii A Co. \. lU-u-kwilI (lit (XT. Caz. 4S1 (. :.n. I'.ri'cdinf: v. Tandy (14S Ky. :M."> ) , 24JI. IJn'it4'nl>Hcli \ S(ron;i Co. v. Hoscii- Imtv ( K!" (V (;. 7«i:{|. .").">!). r>r«-nnan v. KmiTv-HirdTliavcr Drv Krd. H.'p. 4r.;n. 1.V2. 222. V .M.y.r {:t-t on: V,a/.. 2«7 ) , 177. V. .Mi-yiT ( i:{!» C. S. .".40 1, Jit, I0.\, 172. 174. 17.".. S!l(i. V. Sti-arns (."{7 Ft:{. 100, 148. Hrysuri v. Wliitrluad ( I S. & .S. 74), 22:j. 2r.. 508. Bristol V. K(niitalilc Life As.sur- ancT Sociftx- (1:52 N. Y. 204). 201. Hroadliurst v. Harlow ( \V. N., 1872. p. 212 1. 147. .{.{f). ;{41. Ilrodorick & Rascom Rope Co. v. A. Lfschen & .Sons Rf.j.e Co. (100 0(T. Caz. .toll I. .{Sit. Hronk v. Scott Co. (211 Fed. K.-p. :W8), 488. RrfK)klyn White LcikI Co. v. Masury (2.'. Marl.. 4 l(i i . l.'.O Hn.v.er V. Roiilton (1). (."..3 Fed. Rep. .{80 (. 20, m, 70, .38-., ;-.:)(!. V. Houlton (2), (7 C. C. A. .-.07), 26, 00, .'■.45. Urown V. Henzinjier (lis Md. 20). 2.32. V. HraiMiHteiM (8.3 N. V. Siip|t. lOitO). .320. 440. V. DoKclier (147 .v. Y. 047 » . 52, 270. V. Mercer (.37 \. Y. Super. (1 205), 755. (70 Fed. Rep. 7r.8|, 285. Huckiand v. Rice (40 ()lii(. St. 52(ii, 70. HucyruM Co. v. .McArthur (210 Fe»l. Iiep. 2t>(> ) . 432. I'.uerk v. Indiaeu.>;er ( F.-d. Case No. 21(l7a). 47(5. IhilTalo Ruhber Mf;,'. C(.. v. IJutuv ia ihil)her Co. (153 X. Y. S. 770). 110, .565. Rullalo Specialty Co. v. \an Chef (227 Fed. Rep. 301). 00. V. Van Cleef (217 Fed. Rep. HI i, 434. Ruleiui V. Newman (31 \. V. Sup|>. 440 1. 02, 755. Rullocli. Lade & Co. v. Cray ( 10 dour. .Juris. 21Si. I0(i. l.-,n. Rullock V. Chaj.man (2 DvC. A Sm. 2111,- 53. Rulle V. Tjjleheurt Rros. (137 I'd. Rep. 402). 113, 136. V. Iii;.'leheart Rros. (70 C. V. A. 76), 29. Hunker v. Stevens (20 I'.d. Rep. 24.5-240), 400. Murckhardt v. Rurckhardt (J2()liio St. 474), 240. 252. v. Hurckhardt (.3ti (Hiio St. 201 i, 24(i. 2.'.0. Rurfield V. Rouch (31 Reavan. 241l, 227. HiirCid 'i'.Mii.i': ()!■' c;asks. xxvn lirfiTcnrrs nrr In ixn/i l{iir^(-.s v. I5ur;;f>s (17 Mn;;. I.- A Ki\. 2:)7), l.v.». V. Bur<,M'HH (.-{ I)c(i. M. c^ C. H()(l), 171. 172, 174. 177. V. Ilat.'ly (2(i Hniv. 2l!»i. 44U, 4!)(l. 4!t2. V. Hills (2H 15.a\aM. 244 1 . 204, .•{24, 400, 401, 402. Uiirkv V. Cassiii ( 1.', Cal. 4(;7 ) , 110. 0.37. Hiirkiianlt v. Burklianlt Co. (4()lii<> N. r. :$.">«), 2S, :n, -m;. Hurlaiul v. Jlruxlivirn Oil Co. (ti U. 1". ('. 482, 4S0|, i;{."). Hurnott V. Hahn (88 F.-d. it.].. W4), 4:}0, 448, 440. V. Li'uchars (i:5 L. T. N. S. 40.-)), 401. V. IMialon (li. (21 How. I'r. 100), 457. V. I'halon (.'} Kcyi's, .")04 ) , US. 1.37. V. Phalon (9 Bos. 102), .32;-). liurrow V. Marceau ( 100 X. Y. St. 105), 128. Murrowi's v. Carrom-Arclian-na Co. (100 F.hI. Kcp. 2041, 202. r.urt V. Smith (71 Fed. Rep. Kil), 286, 200, 3.34, 342, 303. V. Tucker (178 Mass. 403), 70, 124, 211, 213. Burton v. Stratton ( 12 Fed. Rep. GO(J), 28, 70, 88, 131, 134, 140, l.-.O, 101, 214, 342. Burton Med. Co. v. United Drui,' Co. (170 O. G. 288), .-)()S. Busch V. Gross (71 X. J. E^\. 805), 355. Bush V. Gross (X. .J. Ch.), (04 Atl. Rep. 7.54), 125. Busaard v. Catalino (2 Crai\eh C. C. 421), 485. Butler V. Alter (1.30 N. Y. S. 882), 240. V. Burleson (10 Vt. 170), 225. \. FayiTNMuthi T (01 Fid. ili-p. 4.".H), 474, 474. Canady v. Knox (4:» Wash. .'.CT i , 24 S. Canal Co. v. Clark ( Ki Wall. 311 322). 04. i:V2. 04, 132. Cand.'f V. Di-iT.- (.'.4 HI. App. 430), 107. l."»0. 172, 281. 3.^.0. Canham v. .fon.-8 (2 V. & H. 21S), 2r)3. Cantri'll & Codirani' v. Butltr (124 ¥ii\. U«p. 200). 304. Cantn-ll & Cochranr. Ltd. v. Wittc- man (100 K.-d. U.-p- *^-'- -"^• 4.V2. Capewell Hors.- Nail Co. v. Moonoy (1«7 Ft'd. r)7.")), 203, r»(i3. V. Mooni-y (172 F.-d. 82(i ) , 203. V. Putnam Nail Co. ( 14t» Fed. Hop. 070), 202. Car AdviTtiflinji Co. v. New York City Car Advi-rtisin^' Co. ( 107 N. Y. S. 547 I, 100. CarlKdic Soap Co. v. Thompson (25 1-Vd. Rt-p. 025). 101, 280, 404. C«rcy V. Niw Home Scwin;,' Ma- chine Co. (101 <»ir. <:a/.. 44S(. 380. Carmcd Win*- Co. v. PaloHtinc lit- lirew Wine Co. (101 Fi-d. Ut'p. 0.54), 4.53, 470, 488. Carmlchacl v. T.atim. C. 245), 120. V. Quirk (130 0\\. C.az. 1.531 i. 3!tO. Case Hro.s. V. Murphcy & Co. (C. D., 1008, p. 100), 552. Cassidy v. Metoalf ( 1 Mo. Ap|». .503- 0(il), 234. 241. V. Metcalf (05 Mo. 519), 241. Cantle v. Sie-fri.d (103 Cnl. 71). 130. 037. Castner V. Coflnian ( 17S T\ S. 108), 100. Castroville Co-o|M'rative Creamery Co. V. Cid (0 Cal. App. 533). 440. Caswell V. Davis (58 N. Y. 223 233 1. S. 103. 137. 13S. V. Hazard (121 N. Y. 484), 31. Cauirman v. Seliuhr (123 Fed. Rep. 205), 307. Cave v. Myers (S.ton (4th Kd.) 238 ^ 200. 311. v. Mvers (Seton (.5th Kd.) 5.39), 85. Cav-Cha TAHI.K OF CASKS. UcfvrtnccH arc, to pages. XXJX Cavendish v. f I raves (24 Beav. 16.'}), 4 .'{4. Cellular Clotliinf,' Co. v. Maxton ( L. R., 18!)9, A. C. 326). l-<. H><>. ir.2, ir)3, 473. Celluloid Mf;,'. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 04), 117, 185, 187, 18!), 214, 32."), 43!), 443, 451. V. Read (47 Fed. Rep. 712), 117, 43n, 408. Centaur Co. v. Ileinsfurter (84 Fed. Rep. 955), 89. V. Hufihes Bros. Mfp. Co. (91 Fed. Rep. !)»)!), 89, 13(5, 151. V. Huphes Bros. Mi},'. Co. (34 C. C. A. 127), 100. V. KillenheraCk Rifrnnrv-s air t<> ixii/rs I huttan«M>;.'ii M>'«lii'iiH' I'o. v. Tlu'd- ford t n . 4!> l'.-.l. K.'I'. !M".t. il.Vi I . 3*>. V. Tlu'ilfonl (2 1. :>s I'.'.l. i;.|.. :u7). 3'>. V. Tludford (14 C. C A. 101 ». 3r.. rh« Cli '>• 850), S4. CluH'SC (."uttiT Co. V. l)\nm (4.) hid. App. 20), 119. Chemical Co. v. M.y.r (HO U. S. r)40). 103. Chica^'o Board of Trado v. ChristU' Grain & Stock Co. (lUS U. S. 23(51, 3(m. Chicajro T.andlord's Protect ivf Bu- reau V. Koehel (112 111. App. 21), 328. Chickorinp v. Cluckerineek (50 Mich. 401-421). 229. Choynski v. Cohen (39 Cal. 501), r.7, 98, (iOO, 037. Christy v. .Murphy (12 TTow. Pr. 77), 173, 180, 210. Chuld. V. Criinthw (35 Beav. 127 1, 441, 490. Church V. Krc'sncr (49 \. Y. Sup. 742), 312. V. Proctor (tlti V'rd. K.p. 240- 245), 70. ( hurch & Dwi^iht Co. v. Ruhh (9!) Fed. Uel». 270-2781, 40. 51. 2!I5, 310. I C'hurton v. I)ouf;laH (.lolmnon, 174 188). 28. 30. IKl. 219, 230. Cij;armakerH' Inlernattoiial T'nion of Americ'U v. (;oIill>erK' (57 Atl. i:. J. nil, 02, 730. ( i;:ar Makers" I'roteetive rnioii v. i/mdner ( .{ OJiio St. Dec. 244), 02. Ci;;ar Makers' I'nion v. Coiihaini (40 Minn. 72tl), 5, 02. CitizenK* Li;;lit. Heat & Power Co. V. .Mont;ioniery l.ijiiit & Water IV)Wer Co. (171 Fed. Kt-p. 553), ;tc.4. .•{»•)(•.. City Brewery Co. v. PoWidl (L. R. (1S!)7). App. Caa. 710, 716), 210. City of Carlshad v. Kutnow (08 " Fed. Rep. 794), 100, 449, 473. V. Kutnow (71 Fed. Rep. 107), 01, 104. V. Schult/. (78 Fed. Rep. 409). 01, 100, 104, 170, 4(i2. V. Tliackeray (57 Fed. Rep. 18), 108. V. Tihbetts ^51 Fed. Hep. 8.52). .52. Clark V. Adna Imn Works (44 111. App. 510). ISI). V. Clark (25 Barl). 70 1. 174, 177. V. Freeman (11 H.avan, 112). 53, 430. V. Tns. Co. (7 Mo. App. 71). 2!». V. Leach (32 Beav. 14), 29. (lark Thread Co. v. Armitafje (21 C. C. A. 178), 179. 325. V. .-Vrmita;.;!- ((17 Fed. Rep. 800), 325. V. Win. Clark Co. (1), (55 N. .1. Va[. 0.58), 448. V. William Clark (2), (50 N. .1. K: Syrup Co. (42 C. C. A. 383), 150. Clinton Metallic Paint Co. v. New- York Metallic Paint Co. (50 N. Y. Supp. 437), 107, 150, 412. Clip Bar Mf-?. Co. v. Steel Protected Concrete Co. (200 F.d. Itcp. 874), 374. Close V. Flesher (50 X. Y. State Rep. 283), 240. Clotworthy v. Scliepp (42 Fed. Rep. 02), 70, 100, 127, 334. Coats V. Cliadwick (L. R.. 1804, I Ch. D. 347), 474. V. llolbrook (2 Sandf. Ch. 586), 22, 68, 302, 404, 442, 443, 400, 402. V. Merrick Tliread Co. (140 U. S. 562), 172, 103, 342. V. Merrick Thread Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 324), 89, 286, 301. V. Platt (17 Leg. Int. 213), 174. C. 0. Burns Co. v. W. F. Burns Co. (118 Fed. Rep. 944), 207. Coca-Cola Co. v. Branham (216 Fed. Rep. 204), 333. V. Butler (220 Fed. Rep. 224, 232), 156, 038. V. Deacon Brown Bottling Co. (200 Fed. Rep. 105), 564. V. Gay-Ola Co. (200 Fed. Rep. 720), 287, 370. V. Nashville Syrup Co. (200 Fed- Rep. 153), 504. Coe V. Bradley (0 0(T. Ch/. .-,41), 38. V. l{radlcy (Fed. CaHe No. 2041 i. :t25. ('dclirani' v. MacNish & Son (13 i;. I'. (". 100), 447. V. Macnisli (I*. C, I,. II. IH06, A. C. 225). 118. Cocks V. ('liandh'rH ( L. IL 11 K(|. 447), 151, 436. ( (iirt'cn V. Hrunton (4 McLean, 516) , 68, 118, 421, 005. V. Brunton ( 2 ) , (5 McLean, 256 ) , 305, 338. 442. Coll'nian v. Castiicr ( S? l'"i(l. Rep. 457), 100. Colien V. Nagle (100 :\Iass. 4), 72, 217. V. Nagle (73 N. K. Ucp. 276), 124. Colin V. P.-oplc (140 111. 4S6l, 62. 668. Cole V. Cole's Many-u.se Oil Co. (147 Fed. Rep. 030), 402. Cole Co. V. American Cement & Oil Co. (65 C. C. A. 105), 294. Coleman v. Flavel (40 Fed. Rep. 8.-)4), 347. Coleman & Co., Ltd. v. Jno. Brown & Co. (16 R. P. C. 610), 334. Colgan V. Danheiscr (35 Fed. Rep. 150), 112. Colgate V. Adams (88 Fed. Rep. 85)0), 117, 325. V. Compagnie Francaise (23 Fed. Rep. 82), 472. Colley V. Hart (7 R. P. C. 101), 54. Collier v. Jones (120 N. Y. St. 001), 122. Collins V. Cowen (3 K. & J. 428), 68. Collins V. Reynolds Card Mfg. Co. (7 Abb. N. C. 17), 332, 330. xxxu TAULi: OK CASES. Col-(.oo Rcfcrvncts arc to pages (.'ollinH Clu'inical Co. v. Capitol City Mfj;. Co. (42 KihI. Kt|). 04), 4Ut. 4(i7. I'olliiis (.'(). V. Aim-s (20 HIalrlif. r)42). 43!t. V. Brown (.{ K. A .1. 42.1 1 , 22. 08. V. Cohen (3 K. & .1. 428 1 , 22. V. Olivt-r Ames & Soiih Corpora- ti«)n (18 Fi'd. U»p. aOl-.")?!), 308, 4r.ri. V. RiH'ves (28 L. J. Ch. ilO), 22, 08. V. Walk.r (7 W. H. 222). 22. 08, 4!)0, 402. CoUinsplatt v. Finlayaon (88 Fod. Rep. 0tt3), 101, 102, 283, 307, 344, 430. Colloday v. Baird (4 Pliila. 130), 130. Colman v. Crump (70 N. Y. .')73;, 203, 208, 200, 300, 308, 443, 440. Colton V. Tliomas (2 Brewat. 308), 004. Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn (1.10 U. S. 400), 04, 00, 1;'7, 150, 103. V. Alcorn (40 Fed. Rep. 070), 408. Columbian Enp. Works v. 'Mallory (7.') Or. r)42), 31.'). Com. V. K. 1). & W. Co. (110 S. \V. It.-j). 70), 00. (•(.mer V. Stat.- (103 C.a. 00 1 , 0C)1. Commercial Advertiner Assn. v. HayneB (40 N. Y. Supj). 038- 042), 201, 202. Commonwealth v. Anwlvieh (18(1 .MaBH. 370), 003. V. Ho/.en ( 17<; MiiHH. 120), 03, 003, 004. Compania de TohacoH v. Rehder (."» R. V. C. 01), 30.->. Com])aiiia (Jeneral dc 'rol>aet>B v. Rehder l") R. 1'. C. 01), 301. Comjuitin},' Scale Co. v. Standard Comimtinj; Scale Co. (r>5 C. C. A. 4.-)0). 101, 101, 103. ComBtoek v. Wiiite (18 How. I'r. 421), 123, 174, 2.13. 44.). Condy v. Mitchell (37 L. T. X. S. 208), 31, 34, 2.-)3. Congress, etc., Spring Co. v. Hit^h Rock ConfireBs Spring' Co. (iil Barl). r)20), 28, 110. Coiij,'ress & Kmpire Sprinj; Co. v. llif,'h Rock Con<,'re8s Spring Co. (4.> N. Y. 201), 10, 01. V. High Rock Congress Spring Co. (4 Am. L. T. 108), 100. Connell v. Reed (128 :Masa. 477). 70. Conrad v. Brewing Co. (8 Mo. App. 277, 28.-)), 422. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Dorf- linger (Fed. Case No. 3129), 82. V. Tiiomas (Cox, OOf)), 200. Consolidated Tee Co. v. Ilygeia Dis- tilled Water Co. (151 Fed. Rej). 10, 12), 51. V. Hygeia Distilled Water Co. (80 C. C. A. 500), 22, 123, 450. Consumers' Co. v. Ilydrox Chem. Co. (182 (). (J. 721), 507. Continental Ins. Co. v. Board of Fire Underwriters (07 Fed. Kej). 310), 373. V. Continental Fire Asan. (00 Fed. R.p. 840, 840), 101, ISO. 3.Vi. Continental Tohacco Co. v. Larua & Bro. Co. (00 C. C. A. 557), 2H4. Compagnie Laferme \. TI. ndrick ( ....k & Bernlieimer Co. v. Robb (73 (Seh. 512,, 400. Fero(l HroH. Co. (Cut N. Y. Siiiip. 2!>si. ;»:{S. D Daclirrian v. (Julliftn ( TH Tel. R<|'. 7H4 1, 47.".. Datlirrinn v, Viuuliian (iti. '."H K.d. H.'p. S72i. 147. V. Vaoul.ian ( :{7 N. V. Siipp. Oil). 140. V. Yaculiian (2i. ('•»• l"<'l K''I> 812). 107. 140. V. Yarul)ian (72 F«-(l. U«p. H'lOi, 107. 14(1. V. Yaculiian (OS Fi-d. Wry. S72- 87«»). 7.'>. Dakin v. \Villiani> (17 W .ii'l.ll, 447 1 , 24ti. Dalev. Smithson (12 Ahli. I'r. 2:57 i . 182. Daniel v. Wliit.lKius.- (1.'. R. P. <". 1.341, 217. Daniel O'Donm-ll v. Riscal Mf;:. Co. 228 Fed. R.-p- 127. i:J«»i. :{2!>. 406. Dant V. Mead (!•(! Ky. 2.'>:. i . 2S. Daufrherty v. Van Nostrand ( 1 Uo\X. 111. (N. Y.) «}8), 22!i. DauKman & Drummond Tobacco Co. V. RufTner M'-.l (as.. N... .^.-iSfj). 281. Davey v. Bentinck (lS'.i;{i, (1 (}. B. IS.-.). 4:j.-.. V. Dav.y (.'.(I N. Y. Supp. Kil i, :.4. David K. Font/. Co. v. S. A. Font/. St.H-k FiM.d Co. ( !(;:< Frd. R«'|i. 408 1. 121. 188 DavidH Co. V. DavidH (2:1.1 V. S. 4(11. 471). i!»:«. r,a:i. David^.n v. Munwy (2{» I'tali, 181). 477. Kcfcrt-m^-i arr to pngis. Dnviea v. IIo«lp»on (2.'. R.avan. 177), 22:i. 230. DavicH County Distilling' Co. v. .Martiiioni ( 117 F.-d, It.-j.. 1H«), IOC. DaviH V. A. B«.otli i Co. (tJf> C. C. A. 2«mi. 2;i8. V. DaviH (27 Fed. Rep. 4»0, 402), 7. i:»'.t. 142. 270. 281. 4r.2. .'.08, r.:i8. V. Kendall (2 I! i. .VUi i . 2.".:l. :i()o. V. Kennedy (111 Craiit. I'p. Can. Cli. .-.2:n, (50. 127. \. .^triholt (.V.) L. T. N. S. 854), 14(i, 144. Dawes v. Davies (S.-l.. 42(1). 304. Dawson v. BeeHon ( L. R. 24 Cli. D. r.()4). 244. Day V. New Kn;.'land Car Spring Co. (3 Blateli. 1.-.4-1.-.0 ) . 476. V. Wehster (40 X. Y. Supp. 314 1, 440. V. Woodwortli (.'.4 U. S. (13 Howard). 3(i3, 371). 41H. 421. Dayton v. Wilkes (17 How. Pr. .-.l(i), 221. 231. Dean v. Emerson (102 Mass. 480). 222. Decker V. Decker (.V2 How. I'r. 218) , 174. US, .".0? Deerin;,' Harvester Co. v. \Vliitman A Barn.'s Mf^'. Co. (86 Fed. Kep. 7(54), 18. \. Wliitman & Barnes Mf^. Co. (33 C. C. A. -..-.8 I. 18. 1.-.7, 158, 31.-.. De Flore/. V. Rayixddrt (14 Hlateiif. 50.-.), 4(50. Deister Concentrator Co. v. Doister Maeli. Co. (Ind. App. ) . (112 .\. K. R.p. 000 1. 175, 311. Deitsch v. Geo. G. Gil.win Co. (155 Fed. Rej.. 3S3). 217. 385. V. Loon.-n (141 ( XT. Gaz. 11(51), .300. t>»k-Dix TAItl.i; OK CASKS. {{efcrcncvH arc to pages. xxxv l)c KiiyiMT V. W ittciiiiui (23 F«'(l. Rt'p. 871), 2!>8, 2)M>, 4:{(). Dclawan' & HihIhou Caniil Co. V. Clark (l:t Wall. .U 1 i. !t4, 100, 1:54, 142, l.')?, l.V.t, lti4. DiliOiifj V. \MA)nti Hook &. Kyc (-'o. (74 Oir. (la/.. 80!) I. 177. ])»• Loiij; Hook & Kyc Co. v. l-'raiKis Hook & Eye Co. (US K.d. Rop. 038), 281. V. Francis Hook & Eyo Co. (7.'> C. C. A. 484), 2n(i. V. Francis Hook & Kyc Co. (2), (13!) Fed. Kcp. 14(i), 2!)(). V. Francis Hook & Kyc Co. Si F. Co. (I(i8 Fed. Hep. 8!)8), 4.-)8. V. Francis Hook & Eye Si Fas- tener Co. (l.V.t Fed. IJep. 2!)2), 4r)7. Del Valle v. Mayer (Seton (4tli K.l.) 23«i), 405. Deinpsey v. Dohson (174 I'a. 122), 25!). Dcnce v. IJrand (W. N., 1S81, ji. 31). 404. V. Mason (41 L. T. N. S. 573), 29. Dennison Mfp. Co. v. Tliomas Mfj^c- Co. (04 Fed. Rep. ().")l-0.'.8) , 340. Dennison Mfjj;. Co. v. SeliarlV Tajr. Label & Box Co. (tiS C. C. A. 2(53), 338. V. Thomas Mfg. Co. (04 Fed. Rep. 651, ().-)0), 4, 18, 44, 114, 133, 158. Dent V. Turpin (30 L. .T. Ch. 40.-) i , 31, 48, 401. Denver Chem. Co. v. Lilley (133 C. C. A. 73). 322. Denver Railway v. Harris (122 I'. S. .V.)7. 000). 421. Deposit Bank v. Frankfort (101 U. S. 510). 488. Derby Dry Plate Co. v. Pollard (2 Times L. R. 276 ), 32(i. Derinj,' v. Earl of WinclieJHeH ( 1 Cox, CJi. 318, 310), 445. I)errin-4cr v. IMate (2!» Cal. 2!»2 1 , 5, 18, 22, 70. 11 !t. (;37. l)e Sands v. .\. \'. 1 lira Id ( KH N. Y. App. l)i\. I!t2i, 27ti. Detroit V. Detroit City Ity. Co. (55 Fed. Hep. .5(ifl), 578. Detroit Creamery Co. v. Velvet Brand Ice (nam Co. (Midii, ( 15;{ X. W. itep. t;(;4). 24. Devlin V. Devlin (tiO N. Y. 212), 177, 474, 404. V. .McKcod ( 135 Fed. Hep. 104 1, 51, 112. DeVoe SnufT Co. v. Wollf (124 C. C. A. 302). IS, 2!t5, 310, 304, 440, 454. Dewitt v. .Matlicy I IS Ky. K. Hep. 257), 61, 213. l)eYounf,'S v. Junj,' (27 N. Y. Supj). 370), 312. Diamond Crystal Salt Co. v. Wor- cester Salt Co. (137 C. C. A. 16, 17), 447. Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber ( loii N. Y. 473-484), 235. v. Safe Harbor Match Co. ( 10!» Fed. Rep. 154), 476. V. Saginaw Match Co. (74 C. C. A. 50), 140, 282, 314, 370. Dietz V. Horton Mfg. Co. (170 Fed. Rep. 865), 73, 103. Dicks V. Yates ( L. H. 18 Ch. D. 76-88), 201. Dickson V. McMaster (IS Ir. .lur. 2021, 20, 401. Dittgen v. Racine Paper Goods Co (164 Fed. Rep. 85), 374. Dixon Cnuil)h" Co. v. Benham (4 Fed. Hej). 527-530), 344. V. Guggenheim (3 Am. L. T. 228), 70, 212. V. Guggenheim (2 Brewster, 321), 20, 200. X \ X \ 1 TAHl.K OK CASKS. I>i\ Dun licit II nri s (II Dixon V. FuNxiu^ (:t Kll .V l^l. :.;i7i. 2ui. :i(U, 4i>«. V. .?«rk«.<.n (.2 Si-ot. h. K-p. IS«). 121» 2:)0, 2:)l. Dnl.s«tn V. Craliani ( »'.> 1"<«1. K.)). 17 >. 2.'>4. 472. l»o. \. Di>(i;.'r ( 1 »'> (."ill. :{SOi. 17<>, 17'.t. DiKijff Mfji- <^"«>- ^- >^«'wall A Day 2881. i:i!>. Donn.ll V. Ih-rrinj,' Hall-MHrvin Safe Co. (2(»S U. S. 2ti7), 174. Dornan v. Kivf.-r (4'.t Vrd. \Wy. 4t52), 264. Dou^'las V. Stokos (14!) Ky. r,0(! ) . 277. Dov.T Stampin},' Co. v. F.llows (lt;:{ Mass. l!Ui. 2. S'.t. ill, 2!Ml, ti04. l),.\v V. Kln-tric Co. (tl'.> N. H. :H2i. 2:)0. Dnwlinjr ». Livin-ston.- ( UtS Midi. .3211, T):). Drake v. Dodswortli (4 Kansas \:\:,\, 230, 231. Drakr lldw. Co. v. \\•rou^'llt-l ron Kanj,'*- C«>. (7S N. Y. Supp. 1114), 373. J>raki' Mfdicint' Co. v. Clcsani-r (08 Ohio St. 337), J2(». I»i8. l)ra,MT V. Sk.Tr.-tt (!i4 l-Vd. K.-p. !I12). r)2. V. Sk.nvtt (21. 110 F.d. R.p. 206, 208), 48, 103, 3!I3. Dr. A. R»H'd CuHhion Shoe Co. \. Kr.w {UVl IV<1. ll.-i-. 8S7. 881H. 13, IHl. V. Knw (l'>8 V,i\. U«l>. '>'>2i. l-"«- Dr. Dadirrian i Sohh I o. v. Ilau.n Ht4-in (74 N. Y. Supp. 70'.t l , 107. • III plll/IS. Dr. Da\i.'> N. N Supp. '.tl7). 181. Dn\08. Drrwry \ Son \. Wood (127 Ffd. K.ji. S87 1, 32S, l)rfy«lo])|ul V. \dnM;.' (14 I'liila. 22«h. !•!•. 134. Dr. I'l'ttT H. Fahrmy & Sohh Co. V. Unmiinr ( H2 C. C. A. 021 ). 2(17. V. Kiiniintr ( 1.'.3 Fed. U«p. 73.")), 114. Drummond Tolmi-i-o Co. v. Handle (114 111. 412), 174, 1S3. V. Tinsli'V Toliacco Co. (.">2 Mo. App. 10, 2(S), :ni. 3'.tS. 3!)!», 4(57, 4(18. Dr. \ViHianis Mt-d. Co. v. Al«-xandor, Capo Cood Hope (27 S. C. R. r>8!)), 326. V. Totliill, Cape Good Hopi- (20 S. C. 11. 483), 32(5. Dvi Houlay v. Dii Boiilay ( L. U. 2 V. C. 430-441). 171. Ducat V. Cliirajxo (10 Wall. 410), 414. Dudon V. Maloy (03 F.d. Mrv- 183), 24."). Diicr V. Corliin Caliiiift l-ook Co. (140 U. S. 21(5. 2231. 17. Dukp V. Ch'»v,.r (10 Tvx. Civ. App. 218), 320. V. Crct-n (10 oir. Cu/.. 1004). ')04, .-.1(1. .'.3S. Dunl.ar v. Cl.-m. (42 Wis. llSi, 61, no. l.V.l. Dunlap V. Scholirld (1.V2 V. S. 244, I 2481. 388. V. WilU.randt Surgical Mfj,'. <"«»• 1 (SO C. C. A. 57 .'>1, 40(5. I Dunlap & Co. \ Yoimt; (74 N. Y Supp. 184 1. 442. Dunnactiif v. Youn^' \ Sons (Ct. I Sfss. (as. 4tli Srr. X 874 i, r.7. l)ii|i i:i<; 'Iauli: ok casks. XX.W II Urfcn nn H (i. Diiryra v. Natiniiiil Stanli Mf^'. Co. Ci.') ('. ('. A. 1 :. Duwfl V. Holini.T (14 OIF. Caz. 270), .".()(•). Dwifiiit V. IlaniiKnii (ll.i MasH. i7.">), 22r), 2:n. iw. l)\vinncll-\Vri<:ht Co. v. Co-oprra- tive Supply Co. ( 148 Fed. Rep. 242), 1.31, 4:J8. Ihmnit V. Lewis (Iowa), (123 N. \V. Kcp. 244), 128. E Kajjle White Lead Co. v. Pflu},'h (180 Fed. Rep. r)7n, 583), 44!». K. & J. Burke, Ltd. v. Bishop (75 C. C. A. (iOfi), 207. Earl of Lytton v. Devey (54 L. .1. Ch. 203), 260. Eastern Extractiii}^ Co. v. (iroater New York Extracting Co. (110 N. Y. S. 738), 257. Eastern Outfitting Co. v. Manlieim (50 Wash. 428), 14. Eastman Co. v. Reiclienbach (20 X. Y. Supp. 110), 254, 250, 258. E. B. Estes & Sons v. George Frost Co. (170 Fed. Rep. 338), !)3, 131, 300. Eckhart v. Consolidated Milling Co. (72 111. App. 70), 313. Economist Furnace Co. v. Wrought- Iron Range Co. (86 Fed. Rep. 1010), 373. Edelsten v. Edelston (0 Jur. N. S. 479), 301. V. Edelston (10 L. T. X. S. 780), 462. V. Edelsten (1 DeG. J. & S. 185), 115, 204, 301, 310, 338, 412, 415, 442, 400. V. Vick (11 Hare, 78), 85. Edison v. Edison I'oiyforni Mfg. Co. (07 Atl. i{<-p. 3021, 270. V. Ilawtliorne (100 Fed. I{ep. 172- 174), 347. V. Thomas \. Edison, .Fr.. ( iicm- ical Co. ( 128 Fed. IJ.p. 1013 1, 532. Kdisoii .\ltg. Co. v. (iladstoiM- (58 Atl. Rep. 301), 318. Edmonds v. Benhow (Setoii (3rl Ed.) 905), 201. V. Boston MOM Mass. 549), 229. ]:dna Smelting & Refining Co. v. Xatlian Mfg. Co. (30 App. D. C. 487), 126. Edwards v. Dennis (30 Cli. I). 454 r , 63. Kgl>ert V. Citizens' Ins. Co. (7 l'''d. Rep. 47), 485. Eggers V. Hink (63 Cal. 445), 109. 158, 159, 000. 637. i:. H. Taylor & Sons Co. v. Ta\ lor (S5 S. W. Rep. 1085). 428. 457. Einstein v. Sawhill (65 OfT. Ga/.. 1018), 60, 385, 395, 544. V. Sawhill (2), (64 OfT. Gaz. 1533), 539. V. Sawhill (61 Off. Gaz. 287), 539. Eisel V. Hays (141 Ind. 41), 252. Eiseman v. Schiffer (157 Fed. Rep. 473), 69, 128, 575. Eisenstadt :Mfg. Co. v. J. M. Fisher Co. (232 Fed. Rep. 957), 370. Elaterite Paint & INIfg. Co. v. S. E. Frost Co. (105 Minn. 239), 257. Electric Renovator "Nffg. Co. v. Vac- uum Cleaner C"o. (180 Fid. Hep. 754), 375. Electro-Silicon Co. v. Levy (.'.9 How. Pr. 469), 320. V. Hazard ( 2!i Ihiii, 309). I -in. 138. V. Trask (59 How. Pr. 189), 138, 326. .\ \ \ M 1 1 •Alll.i; (»K CASF^. EK-i:»t lirft'itnris nrr lt> jnttjis Kl.ftro St.1'1 Co. V. Kiii(i«'nlH>r){ St.tl Ci.. ( J:t .\|.|. 1). C. -270), 102. Klt:in Hutt»T Co. v. Kl^-in ( r.nm try Co. ( l.'..'> 111. l-'7i. ISS. \. ShiuIh ( l.'i."! ill. 127 I. »')««. Klyin NiitioiiHl Watoh Co. v. Illinoi!* Wiitili (.'use C«>. {'2K < 17!» l". S. 00.-) >. S. !». Iti.'.. I'.i.t. I'^A. :tS(». r.:i2. .")4:.. V. Illinois Wat.li I o. (li. (Sit l-vd. Hi-ii. 4S7 1. Iti"). :n2. V. lA>v.lHiid (132 Vrd. i:.p. 41. 47 I. Ift3. Klliott Mai-hinc Co. v. Ci-iit«r (227 Krd. K.)). 124). !t:{S. Illliott Varnish Co. \. Scars. Roi-- l.uck & Co. (221 1m'<1. Hrp. 797). m, 128. 330. 334. Kllis •. ZeiU-n (42 Ca. ".)1), 44."). i;i Moili-Uo Cijiar Co. v. (Jato (2.'> Kla. SS«. in.')). 422. 420. Kniack v. Kanr ( :U Fr.l. K.p. 44 K 374. i;. Millliinnv's Sons v. Now Ihi-ria Co. (133 OlT. Cm/., it!).")), 3!>0. V. Now llMTia K.vtrai't of Tabasco r.pp.T Co. f30 App. I). C. 337), 1.30. KmiTson v. Ha(lt:li. I'r. N. C. 20.')), 3.30. V. Trox.n (80 N. Y. 202 1 , 270, 2S0. \. Will.! I 1.".2 F.-d. Ki-p. 000)..-)03. \. Windov.r (43 Kid. Kip. 420 1. 12S. 317. v. Whittirr ('ol)urn Co. ( lis F.-d. Hep. (•).')7), 3.30. I'.iiocli Morjxan & Sons Co. v. Ward (81 C. C. A. 010), 128, 330. Lntt-rprisc Mfjr. Co. v. Bi-nd.r (148 IVd. H.'p. 313), 31'). V. Landers, Krary & Clark ((>.')('. C. A. .')87). 202, 318. 3r,0. 371. K. V. Dutt«)n & Co. V. Cupples (102 N. Y. Supp. .300), 108. 440. F.pp'-rson & Co. v. Blutlicntlial ( 140 Ala. 12.")). 80. v.. Kefjcnshur;; & Soiis v. .Tiian F. Portuondo Ci^jar Mf;,'. Co. (73 C. C. A. 378), 270. V. .luan F. Portuondo Ci;;ar Mf;;. Co. (130 Fed. Hep. 800, 800), 270. 282. Frwin v. Ilayden (Ti-xas), (43 S. W. Hep. 010 1. 2.")0. I'.SHidstyn v. Holmes (42 Mmil. 507 ), It.o. Ksseylstyn v. Holmes (111 I'ae. Keji. 118), 108, 1()0. Lsteourt V. The Ksti-nurt Hop Ks- s.iiee Co. (.31 L. T. .\. S. .')07 I , 70. KsteH V. Leslie (1 ), 27 Fed, Hep. 22), 118. 202. v. Leslie (20 F.d. Pep. 01 I. 1 IS. 202, 32.'». v. Williams (21 Fed. K.-p. ISO). 20. 20. 20. v. Worth iufiton (22 Fed. Pep. 822), 207. 4.)2. Est-Exp TAiiLK OF c;asks. XXXIX Rrfcnuccs arc to jiagcH. KHtfs V. Wortliiii-itnii (-2), (:!(i Fed. I V.k parte Barclay L Barclay- (l.'U |{c|). K;.')!, 40:(. V. Worth in;-!!!!! (Ml Im<1. Il<|). i:.4|, 118, 202. !•:. T. I'liirlir.nUH \ Cd. \. I)<> Muiixs Scale iV Mf;r. Co. (!••) Fed. It. p. it72l. 4:)1. Kur«'ka I'iie IIom' Co. v. iMinka Kiil)l.er Mf-r. Co. («!» N. .1. K.i. 1 .-)!»). 12(1. Kvans v. Smallconilie (1.. K. :! 11. L. 24it), 2()'.t. V. Von Laer (:{2 F.-d. Kep. l.">:{). 107, 1")!>, 200, .-Ji:}. Kvenson v. Spaldiii;; ( I.IO Fed. olTl, 50. Everett Piano Co. v. H.nt (CO 111. App. 372), .-{74. V. Mans (200 Fed. Uep. 7IS), M. i:win2 Ofr. Gaz. 31."")), .")37. Adriance, Piatt & Co. (20 Oil'. Gaz. 1820), r.42. Alden ( l.') Off. Gaz. 380), r)07. American Lead Pencil Co. (01 OIL Gaz. l.-)L), .-)14. American Optical Co. (C. 1). 1008. 102), .")61. American Separator Co. ( 1 10 O. G. 330), .184. American Weavers' Assn. (04 <»ir. Gaz. 580), 510. American Wringer Co. { 134 0. G. 1803), 567. Atkins & Co. (110 O. G. 2230), 554. Austin, Nichols k Co. (107 0. G. 981), 500. Auto Grand Piano Co. (155 O. G. 307), 560. Hall (OS OIL Gaz. 236t>), 516. O. G. 1502), 552. Marclay & Harclay (C. I). 1008, I5< I. 5(1 1. 507. Miirnhart HroK. & Spindler (87 oir. Gaz. 2118, 2110), 510. HasHctt (55 OIL Gaz. 007), 533. nioeh & Co. (40 OIL Gaz. 443), .500. 541. I'.loeh Bros. Clotliing Co. (124 O. G. 1.521 ), 502. IJloomington Canning Co. (110 O. G. 2235), 577, 578. Boston Fountain Pen Co. (110 O. G. 2531), 553. Brand Stove Co. (02 OIL Gaz. 588), 102. Bronson Co. (87 OIL Chiz. 1782), 102. Brown & Co. (143 O. G. 561), 560. Brigham (20 OIT. Gaz. 801), 110, 502. lUiiralo I'itts Co. (80 OfT. Gaz. 2060), 534, 535, 542, 548. Butler (87 Off. Gaz. 1781), 126. Capitol City Dairy Co. (03 Off. Gaz. 295), 109. Carborundum Co. (118 O. G. 2250), 5.53. Central Consumers Co. (C. D., 1908, p. 180), 562. C. G. Hainline & Co. (.58 Off. Gaz. 947), 514. C. H. Alden Co. (131 O. G. 2410). 563. Cigar Makers' Assn. (16 Off. Gaz. 9.58), 62, 509. Claire (*15 OIL Gaz. 248 ) , 331, 509. Clark-Jewell-Wells Co. (83 Off. Gaz. 915), 537. Cluett, Peabody & Co. (120 O. G. 902), 567. Coats (16 Off. Gaz. 544), .508. Col)b Mfg. Co. (C. D., 1908, p. 6), 562. xl T.\m.K OF CA-^KS. Ilxp-I \jl Ifefcnnnn in Kx parto t'ohii (li. ( Ki ' »!. Car. (ISO). 111. Ml. Cohn (2) (Kl (MT. Cn/. (JSOi. Mil. .'iOT. I'linrud Sripji Hnw. l<>. Ciuti O. G. 8771. .')«2. CunBolidHUMl Fruit .lar I o. (1(5 OtT. Gar.. «71>). r)04, TilO. (\h>ii (r>S OIT. Caz. 94J5I, .")40. r>4:». Ircfdmon- C'artridj,'!- t'o. (">» Off. (Ja/.. i:t:Kn. r)42. Crisci-nt Mfj:. I'o. (('. 1).. I'tol. j). 100). r>»il. Cross (C. 1).. r.l07. p. 1'2.'»). "><><>. Davids & Co. (Ifi Off. Gaz. !»4), .'iOl, 506. r.08, 'y09. Dawes & Fanninj; (1 oil". (!a/.. 27), 508. Dayton Spic- Mills (l:J'> O. (J. 80.3), .")(Kl. Do Long Hook & Kyt- Co. ( 128 O. G. 885), 560, .Oei. Do I.onp Hook & Eyo Co. (C. D., 1007, p. I'M)), 562. Diamond Laboratory Co. (44 MSS. Uvv. 10). 514. Dodg.- Mf;.'. Co. (128 (). C;. 2r);31 I, 550. Dr. Hartcr .Med. (.o. ( lOti Oil". Gaz. 1770). sm;. Egyptian Cigari'ttc Co. (85 Off. (Jaz. 1905), 124. Eldn'd;:c Co. (.-).-) Off. Gaz. 1278), 514. Ervin A. Rici' Co. (s:{ Off Caz. 1207), 00. E. WVrth.-im.T & Cit- (i:<2 O. (;. «70). 555. Fairchild (21 Off. (in/.. 780). 510. FalkiiilM rg (115 O. (J. 1065), .562. Farnum A: Co. (18 Off. Caz. 412). IMt, 160, .507. F. II. Gilw.n Co. (8:{ off. Caz. 1092), 5:14. Fink (li:{ U. S. 71:J), 480. •• to iKUjrs. Kx piirt.- Kol.y A Co. (87 <>n. Ca/.. 1057). 12(1. .VM\, 550. FoKK (2 1 )<•(;. A. .1. 2:j(I). :u. Frcil>«-rg & Workum (20OIV. Caz. 1164). 6. 542. (Jc'orgi' H. Iliird A ( o. (.">0 Off. <;az. i7t;:{ i , ,")4;r C. !•'. Il.iilil.iii A Co. (S7 off. (Jaz. 170), OH. 562. ColdlK-rg. How.n & Co. (182 O. G. 072 ) . 56.S. Ccddsmitii & Co. (C. I).. 1008. p. 104), .561. (irand Rapids School Furnituri- Co. (87 Off. Gaz. 1057), 138. Grossniitli (100 O. G. 2175), 560. (Jrovf (67 Off. Gaz. 1447), 541. Guontlur Milling Co. (86 Off. Gaz. 1086), 104. Hi:lliday Bros. (16 off. Claz. .500), 508. Hampden Watcli Co. (81 Off. Caz. 1282), 125. Hance Bros. A Wliitr (87 off. Gaz. 608), 100. Harris (117 O. G. 003), .554. Henderson (85 Off. Gaz. 453), 05, 106. Hendley (72 Off. Gaz. 1654), 542. Heymun (18 Off. Gaz. 922), 123. H. .1. Heinz Co. (62 Off. Gaz. 1064), 514. Holopliane Glass Co. (loO Off. Caz. 450). 00. Ilorliek's Food Co. ( S4 off. Gaz. 1870), 106. Hudson (55 Off. (Jaz. 1401). 5.{8. iiuteliins (100 Off. Gaz. 1330). 336. Indiana Bieyele Co. (72 Off Caz. 654), 131. .F. I). Hiehardrt & Sion (51 M.SS. D. 4251. .-i37. .r. Knd W ilrox Co. (153 O. C. .546), 550. i;x|i-K.\ji 'I'AItl.K OK CASKS. xli lirjrrtnrvH are V.\ partf K<'«'t \ Ivounlrtc I). (). (!. iK4!n. ri«(2. Konyoii (124 O. C. 2!>(lli. r.(12. KovHtoiic lliaiiiois Co. ( Ktl oir. Ca/.. MlOiti, .{ItC, Kiii-i (('. 1)., lS7(t. p. l(l!ti, .'.(U. Kinj; (2), (4() OIF. (!a/.. 1 lit I , r)0(;. Kin^iaii I'aikinj,' Assn. Ml!> O. (!. 22.'U), r)r)4, r)74. Kinm-y (72 Oir. Ca/. l.U'.M. 12H, r)37, r)4n. Kipling (24 Oil'. Caz. S!)'.» ) , .")41. KirktT, (Jrocr & ('". (Ltd.) (:{7 MSS. 1). :i!t2 I , .■)4(). Kiiapp (If) Oir. (;a/.. ;U8), r)()7. Konigliclics Hofl)raiiam & Muncli- cn (14«i O. G. 7201, r^f,. Krusius Bros. (82 UlT. Gaz. 1(587), !>!). Langdon (f.l OlF. Gaz. 286), r)02, 533. Lawronei' Bros. (44 L. T. N. S. !)8), 27. 3!)!). Lazarus Scliwarz & Lippcr •(()4 Off. Gaz. 13!)6), 537, 540. Lee & Shepard (24 Ofl". Gaz. 1271), 543. Lewis & Co. ((50 MSS. Doc. 210). 560. Loronz (8!) Off. Gaz. 2067), 127. Lutz (33 Off. Gaz. 138!)), 502. Lyon, Dupuy & Co. (28 Off. Gaz. mi), 66, 501, 542. Magazine & Book Co. (C. D., 1008, p. 163), 553, 562. Mahn (82 Off. Gaz. 1210), 510. Mark Cross Co. (116 O. G. 1733), 584. Marsching & Coo. (15 Off. Gaz. 204), 103, 507. Martin (80 Off. Gaz. 2258), 80, 541. M. Block & Co. (40 Off. Gaz. 443), 536. McCal.c (46 Fed. Rep. 363), 467. MeClain (C. D., 1002, p. 185), 561. to jiaiji'K. X parte Mcinnerney (85 OIL Gaz. 140), 274, 550. Meyer Bros. CoJlee & S. Co. ( 135 (>. G. 803), 560. .Moodie (28 Off. Cas. 1271), 502. Mt. Cariion Co. (15(1 (). G. 828), 560. Muir (87 Off. Gaz. 357 i , 537. Nave & MeCord Mere. Co. (80 Off. (Jaz. 1985), 103. Neuman (15!) O. G. 003), 560. Nicholaus (161 O. G. 268), 560. Olive Wheel Co. (84 Off. Gaz. 1871), 108. Oliver (18 Off. Gaz. 023), 100. Orcutt & Son (8 Off. Gaz. 270), 514. Pace, Talhott & Co. (l(i Off. Gaz. 009), 509. Palmer (58 Off. Gaz. 383), 514. Parker (13 Off. Gaz. 323), 514. Parker, Holmes & Co. (85 Off. Gaz. 287), 104. I'earson Tobacco Co. (85 Off. Gaz. 295), 80, 100. Peper (16 Off. Gaz. 078), 508. Phenix Ins. Co. (118 U. S. 610), 479. Polar Knitting Mills (154 O. G. 251), 563. Punnett (L. R. 10 Ch. D. 226), 229. Rail (85 Off. Gaz. 453), 108. Rat Biscuit Co. (C. 1)., 1907, p. 241), 562. Roasted Cereals Co. (57 MSS. 1). 455), 533. R. Steinecke Co. (122 Off. Gaz. 3011), 516. Roth Grocery Co. (62 (XT. Gaz. 315), 540. Roy (54 Off. Gaz. 1267), 532, 538. Ruekstuhl (56 Off. Gaz. 927), 514. Sacks (C. D., 1007, p. 160), 562. Safety Powder Co. (10 OIL Gaz. 136), 110, 507. xlii TABLE OF CASES. ICxp-Kxp Jxcfrrt ncis iirr ti> jidi/rs. V.\ part.- Sftt/mnn A Fornmii (l.'U Kx part.' Taylor i^ l'i>. (114 ( ). (J. o. (',. 2J4ai, :»o9. SchninohtrnlHT); Hrnw. (.'>! MSS. I). 204 ». 541. Scholh-nlM-rpT (Jt(5 V. S. a01»), 414. Si-hiimadi.T & Kttlinpr (I) (10 Otr. Ca/.. 7!U I, '.01. Sohuninolu'r & KttlinpT (2) (22 Off. r.HZ. 12nil. M)2. Scott Pnp.r Co. (137 O. (J. 1482). .'>62. S»-acoRst t'unniii;; Co. (\W (t. (!. (517). AtVi. Slu-nklMT}: C"o. (1.S2 »). (!. 1()7.S i . .'i62. sid.'s (\i:\ oir. (;a/.. i.it;:}), .iir.. Smith (li (ItJ »>ir. Caz. (i7!> ) , ry09. Smith (2( (If. OIT. Ca/,. r.7!t i . 107, r)07. Smith (3 1 (10 Off. C.az. 7«>4). 107, 50(5. Sodafoam Bakiii;; Powdtr Co. (!Mi Off. C;az. 12:5!»), 3.S6. Spayd (S(5 Off. Gaz. G31), lOf). SpintuT (3.") MSS. 1). If)), r)32. .')33. Standard Fawhion Co. (80 Off. (;az. 180). r)37. .St. Anthony Millin;,' & Klcvator Co. ( llil <». C. 1047 I, .')(»:!. StokcH (04 Off. Caz. 437). Ill, r)07. StraHl)urpr & Co. (20 Off. (Jaz. l.-..')i, 112. r>02, .'ill. 540, .".41, .'■.43. StrauKK (C. I).. I!t(l7, p. 133), 022. Str.at<.r M<-tal ('(.. (130 Off. (Jaz. 14H3), 022. Stuhm.T (80 Off. Caz. IHli. !>.-., 103, 148. Sullivan t Uurkr ( K. "Mr. Caz. 70.'.). .'.00. Kutton (108 Off. (iaz. 201 i, 330. 072). M2. ThaddouH Davidrt A C... (If. Off, (Jaz. 04). r.l4. 'Hu' Anti-Adulteration Lca^MU- (8(5 Off. Gaz. 1803), .533. Tlie Bronson Co. (S7 off. Gaz. 1782). .'■.34. Thompw.n. Dcrliy & Co. (If. off. (Jaz. 137). 112. .".07. Tii'tj^ms iV Kol.crtsi.n (87 Off. (Jaz. 2117). 122. .".41. Union Carl.idc Co. (13.". O. (J. 100), r.oi. I'nitod Roofinf; A Mf«. Co. (187 O. G. 1013). .".03. United States Hrewin;^ Co. (12.") O. G. 3.V2), ".02. United States IMayin;,' Card Co. (82 (m Gaz. 1200), 1.30, CArt, .-.10. \'.lvril Co.. Ltd. (S4 Off. (Jaz. 807 ) , 00, ".34. \'i-StJx Products C<.. (17.". O. (J. 846), 5(58. Vo^'cl & S(.n (00 O. (J. 2321 ). 330. 500. Waeferlin^' (If. otV. Ga/.. 7(>4 ) , 1U4. 502, 507. W. B. Belknap cS. Co. (105 Off. Gaz. 745), 330. Weil (83 Off Ga/ lS(l-2.. 114, 542. WeisiTt Bros, (li; on. Ga/.. 08;)), 510. Wiesel (30 Off. Gaz. (580). .502. Willard Chen\. Co. ( 107 Off. (Jaz. 1072), 330. W.df (SO Off. Oa/. 12711. 104. 54 1 . W. Simpson \ Sons (10 OlF. (Jaz. 334 I. 511. Vale A Towne Mf^'. C<.. (81 (XT. <;az. sol I , 1 l.t. Exi)-Firt TAHLi; OK casj:s. xliii Ex parte Youri;,' (S.I.. r,:M ) , 31, 340. Zwiick cV Co. (Tfi (»tr. Ca/.. IH.-)-)!, r)3r>. FalHT V. D'Utassi-y (II AIpI.. I'r. N. S. 309), 310. ' V. FalKT (4!) Barl). ^'u ) , 121, 174. V. Hovcy (Codd. Di;,'. 70, 242), 12n. Fairbanks v. .lacolms (Fed. Case No. 4r)08), 8S, 102, 14!t, 270, 202. Fairfii'ld v. Lowry (207 Mass. 3r)2i, 232. F. & J. Burke v. Bishop (17."> Fed. Rep. 167, 175), 447). Falk V. American West Indies Trad- ing? Co. (ISO N. Y. 445), 3S. . Falkinlmr;,' v. Lucy (35 Cal. 52), 158, ()37. Familton v. Bliss Medieal Co. (135 (). (!. 13.")0), 577. Farl)en-fal)riken T. M. K. (7 M. P. C. 430), 111. Farina v. Cathery (L. J. X. C., 1807, p. 134). 404. V. Silverlock (6 DeG., M. & G. 214, 217), 10, 208, 200,' 300. Farley v. Evening Chronicle Pub. Co. (113 Mo. App. 210), 276. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Farm- ers' Loan & Trust Co. of Kan- sas (1 X. Y. Supp. 44), 185. Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. W. R. Har- rison & Co. ( •.>(•. 0\\. Gaz. 20621, 530. Farr v. Pearce (3 Madd. 74). 225. Foatherstonliaugh v. Fenwick (17 Ves. 298), 222. V. Turner (25 Beav. 382), 230. Feder v. Benkert (76 Fed. litp. 613). 006. V. Bnulno (5 Oiiio X. P. 275 1, 125. Jfcfcrcncrs arc to payat. Fels V. lledley (20 Times L. R. 69), 107. I'Vnnessy v. Pabbits (56 L. T. 138), 455. V. Clark (I.. P. 37 Ch. D. 1«4. 187), 423. V. Day (55 L. T. N'. S. 161), 443, 402. Ferguson v. Davol Mills (2 Brewat. 314), 6. Ft rguson-McKinney Dry Goods Co. V. J. A. Seriven Co. (165 Fed. Rep. 655), 448. Fetridge v. Merchant (4 Abii. Pr. 150), 70, 115. V. Wells (4 Aijb. Pr. 144), 70, 158. Field V. Lewis (Scton (4th Ed.) 237 ) , 443, 490. \. Wagnel Syndicate (L. R. (1000) 1 Ch. 651), 330. Filkins v. Blaekman (13 Blachf. 440). 20, 34. 35, 36, 241. Filley v. Chihl (16 Blatchf. 376), 88, 118. V. Fassett (44 Mo. 173), 118, 120, 121, 270, 293, 301, 443, 467. Findlay v. Carson (07 Iowa, 537). 231. Finger v. Ilalin (42 X. .1. Eq. 606), 242, 248. Finley Rulibt-r-Varnish & Enamel Co. V. Finley (X. J. Ch. 32 Atl. Rep. 740), 203. Finney Orchestra v. Finney's Fa- mous Orcliestra (126 X. W. Rep. 108), 121. Fischer v. Blank (138 X. Y. 244), 00, 147, 286, 306. V. Hayes (6 Fed. Rep. 63-68), 474. Fisli Bros. Wagon Co. v. Fish Bros. Mfg. Co. (05 Fed. Rep. 457, 461 ). 16. 36, 401. V. La Belle Wagon Works '82 Wis. .-)46), 36, 58, 232. •I'AllI.i: OK (A.^KS. Fi8-Ful /.'l/lF. Itri s I I'ihIut & Co. V. riic ApoUinariH (.'i>. (I.. K. 10 Ch. 1). 207 2SMM. r.:{. FinJur V. Ow.'n (S I". I)., p. IJri.J ) , 430. KiHk V. Mttlil.r (:.» F.tl. K.p. ;V28|, 4:>4. rUf V. Dorman (Trnn.^ ( .">7 S. W. Ki'p. 12!»). 24.-.. Flajj;: Mfj;. Co. v. llolway ( 17S Mass. S;n. ISO, 27!t. 2!H. :17(). Flavol V. Harrison ( li» Hare 4l>7), 70. 82. Flcisohman v. Ralimstorf (22ti Fed. H.p. 443). 247. FIcii'chniunn v. Schuckmaiiii ( ti2 How. I'r. J»2). ir.ti, 442. V. Starkly (2.") Fed. Rop. 127), 279, 286. Fl.-minfr v. Let- { 1!»()1 ) (2 Ch. r.!)4 ) . 434. V. Newton (L. 15. 1 H. T.. C. 3(13 ) . 53. l'"lor.-nci- Mf9). 3(J9. 4riO. Ford V. Foster (L. R. 7 Ch. I). Oil). 79. 82. 120. 143. 214. 2ir», 443. Fordham v. Hieks (224 Fed. Rep. 810). 433. I'ord Motor Co. v. Wil.son (223 Fed. Rep. 808), 207. 3:)9. Forney v. Kn;:ineerin^' News Puli- Ii«hin;r Co. ( r»7 Hun, r>88). 3(i7. I"oHH V. Rol.y (191 Mass. 292, 297). 22.'). Foster V. IM«>ud Halm Co. (77 Ca. 210), ll.'>. 342. N. Wel.Hter Piano (d. ( l.t N. V. Supp. 338). 17.->. 331. F«ister-Miil>iirn Co. v. Chinn ( l.U Ky. 82»i, 277. Fotherin^ihiun \. l",\j>re8S Co. (.30 K.<1. Hep. 2.'.2. 2.'.3). 421. I l0. Franeis v. Klyiiii (117 V. S. 385), .^)0. Franck v. Kranck Chieory Co. (95 Fed. Rep. 818-821), 280, 470. Frank v. Maewilliam (117 OlT. Ca/.. 110.-)!, 310. V. Sh-ei)er (l.")(i Mass. .'i83 ) , 29. 340. 342. Frank & Cutmann v. MeW illiam (114 (). (J. 542). 5.-)3. Frankau v. Pope (11 Cape of Uood Hope. 209). 342. Fra/.er v. P>a/er Lubricator Co. (121 111. 147), 29. 177. 24L Fra/.ier v. Dowlin;,' (18 Ky. L. Rep. 1109). 78. 44.'). French v. Alter & Julian Co. (74 Fed. Hep. 788). 452. French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Co. (191 r. S. 427). 193. Fiese V. Bacliof (13 OIL Ca/.. 035), 104, 284, 448. Frobman v. Miller (29 N. Y. S, 1109). 117. V. Morris (123 .V. V. St. 1090), 117. V. Payton (08 N. Y. Supp. 849), 204. Frost V. Uindskopf (42 Fed. H.p. 408), 332. Ft. Stanwix Canning Co. v. \Vm. MeKiiiley Canning Co. (03 N Y. Sujip. 704 I. 379. Fiill.r N. iliiir {W Fe.l. Hep. 439,, 104, l!t3, 311. Fiillwood V. Fullwood (1) (\V. N., 1873. p. 93), 312. Fulton V. Sellers (4 Hrewst. 42). 2H. 29. H\. 11... 110. 172. Fun-Ggw TAHLK OK CASKS, xlv Furikr V. Baldwin (127 Off. Oaz. :{<»2), :{!»(), r)77. V. DrcyfuH (:}4 La. Ann. HO), lltl. 6 Gabriel v. Sioiliftn Asphalt Co. {r>2 N. Y. Supj). 722), If)!*. V. Sicilian AHpliuit Co. (2) (fjO N. Y. .Supp. :J0), 15!). (Jage V. Canada Pub. Co. (11 Can. Sup. 30G), 33, 110, 177, 442. Gage-Downs Co. v. Fcatherbone Cor- set Co. (83 Fed. Rep. 213 |, IIH, 167. Gail V. Wackcrharth (28 Fed. Rep. 28«), 28(i, 407. Gaines & Co. v. Sroufe (117 Fid. Rep. 9G5), 429. Galena Signal Oil Co. v. W. P. Ful- ler & Co. (142 Fed. Rep. 1002, 1007), 204. Gaily V. Colt's Patent Fire Arms Mfg. Co. (30 Fed. Rep. 118), 80. Gamble v. Stephenson ( 10 Mo. App. 581), 3r)5. G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Straus (13G Fed. Rep. 477), 441. V. Ogilvie (170 Fed. Rep. 107), 93. V. Saalfield (100 Fed. Rep. 927), 93. V. Syndicate Pub. Co. (237 U. S. 618), 466. V. Syndicate Pub. Co. (207 Fed. Rep. 515), 93. G. & J. Tire Co. v. G. J. G. Motor Car Co. (39 App. D. C. 508), 121. Gandy Belting Co. v. Victor-Balata Co. (215 Fed. Rep. 795), 291. Gannert v. Rupert (127 Fed. Rep. 902 I. US. Gannett v. Rupert (62 C. C. A. 594), 202. licfcrtnixs arc to patjis. (Jardner v. Bailry (Fed. Case N<. 5221), 331. (Jurnier v. Rossman (195 Frd. !;■ p 175), 114. (Jarretson v. Clark (111 U. S. )J(» . 450. Garrett v. T. II. Garrett & Co. (24 C. C. A. 173), 74, 177, 179, iss. 337, 444. (iartside V. Qutram (3 Jur. X. S. i . 254. Gebbie v. Stitt (31 N. Y. Supp. 102 . 159. (iee V. Pritchard 2 Swan.st. 402 > , 53, 260. Geigcr V. Cawley ( 146 Mich. 550 > . 248. (!eo. G. Fox Co. V. Glynn (78 N. K Rep. 89), 119. V. Glynn (191 Mass. 344), 325. (ieneral Electric Co. "v. Re-New Lamp Co. (128 Fed. Rep. 154), 315, 342, 450. V. Re-Xe\v Lamp Co. (121 Fed. Rep. 164), 315. (Jenessee Salt Co. v. Burnap (20 C. C. A. 27 ) , 94. V. Burnap (07 Fed. Rep. 534), 94. George v. Smith (.52 Fed. Rep. 830), 70, 120, 308, 309, 443. George Frost Co. v. E. B. EsU-s & Sons (156 Fed. Rep. 077), 92. George T. Stagg Co. v. Taylor (95 Ky. 651 ) , 126, 342, 347, 387. Georgia Co. v. Bilfinger (129 Fed. Rep. 131), 578. German-American Button Co. v. Ileymsfeld, Inc. (156 X. Y. S. 223), 451. Germer Stove Co. v. Art Stove Co. (80 C. C. A. 9), 46. Geron v. Gartner (47 Fed. Ri-p. 407), 340. Gessler v. Grieb (80 Wis. 21), 104. G. G. White Co. v. Miller (oO Fed. Rep. 277 I, 19, 118, 328. xlvi TAIII.K OF CA^h-'<. Cihi*-CiiM> Krfm net s . 12({. Cil.lftt V. Il.uil (!) N!..<1. J.V.ti, :i:», i:u). -101. (;ilf8 V. I'axtMii {M IVil. !{.|). SS2, 883). 484. (;ilka V. Milittlovitili (:>() Kid U.p. 427 t . 'HH't. <;illi'tt V. Lumsiliii (4 <>nt. l.uw Hi|). ;«)()». Ktl, 211. (;mitt»' Safity Razor, Ltd.. v. I'.l- htt. Ltd. (2(5 R. r. L\ 588), 4«(). Cilli'V V. Unitid Shoi- Mach. Co. l.-)2 Fod. Ri'p. 72(1), 377. (;mi» V. Hall (Cox, ')!)(•)), 177. V. Hall (.{ BriwH. ^O!) ) , 173. V. Hall (.{ Hnwst. ;i42 ) . !»04. (Jillott V. Kstrrhrook (47 Rarl>. 4")5), 2()!>, 210, :{:5S, :{41, 442, 904. V. KstiTl.rook (48 N. Y. 374), 213. V. Ki'ttU' (3 Dii.r, «>24), 31(5, 33H, 341, 442. Cilman v. l)\vi;,'lit (13 C]rav. 3.')(i i , V. Huniu'Wi'll (122 Mass. 13!)). 1(J, 101. 174, 2!)0, 30(1. C.int<'r V. Kinney Tobacco Co. (12 Ffd. Rrp. 7H2). 7!), 111. (lira^roMian v. Chutjian (1!)4 Mas.s. '.04 ) , 4.">4. <;iron V. (lartnt-r (47 Fid. lujt. 4r,7 1 , 342. ClatMT V. St. Klmo Co. (17.'> Fi-d. lU-p. 27(5 ), 204. C.Irn & Hall Mffj. Co. v. Hall (til N. Y. 22(J), 213, 33. 270 1, 184. G(K»-(jlul TAIJLK (JK CASES, xl\ ii Itcfrrinrcn :5 \. V. S. 22(5) , 7r)<>. Cordrn Hollow Blast (Jrate Co. v. Cordon (142 Mich. 4H8 ( , 74, 174, 17H. Corhnm Co. v. Wliiti' (14 AVall. f)]! I. MM. Coriium Mf*,'. Co. v. Emcry-Bird- TliayiT Co. (43 C. C. A. 511), 205. V. Kmery-Bird-Tliaycr Dry Goods Co. (02 Ft'd. Kt'i). 774-77!>), 437, 444, 474. V. Wfintrauh (170 Fed. Ri'p. !)27), 72. Cormli'y v. Bunyan (138 U. S. 023), 4()7, 485. Gouraud v. Trust (3 Hun, G27), 122, 312. (M)ut V. Alfi)lo{,'lu (G Bcavan, GO), 147. Graham v. Tlato (40 Cal. 593, 598), 422, 456, 637. V. St. Charlos St. R. Co. (47 La. Ann. 214), 373. (; ravel Roofers' E.xehange v. Turn- hull (64 Oir. Gaz. 441), 400. (Jravely v. Gravely (52 OH". Gaz. 1538), 392. V. Gravely (42 Fed. Rep. 265), 385, 415, 429. 547. Graves v. Gunder (136 O. G. 227), 552, 578. Gray v. Taper-Sleeve Pulley Works 16 Fed. Rep. 436-443), 394, 442. (ireacen v. Bidl (115 Fed. Rep. 553, 554), 3.5. (ireat Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co. (224 Fed. Rep. 566), 156. Great Tower Stn'ct Tea Co. v. Smith (6 H. P. C. 172), 135. (Jreen v. Kooke <\\. N.. 1H72, p. 49), 103. Greene v. W Oodlionsr ( ;!.S (Ml. Gaz. 1K91), 151. Grei'iie, 'I'weed &, Co. v. .Maniifac- turer'H Belt Hook Co. (137 O. (J. 2221), 553, 569. V. Manufactun-r'H Belt Hook Co. 1.32 (). G. 680), 574. V. Manufacturer's H<'lt Hook Co. (1.58 Fed. Rep. 640), 112, 446. ('•n-tii: V. Bassett (3 Ont. L. Rep. 263), 28. (iregory v. Spieker (110 Cal. 150). 249, 250. (iropp V. Perkins (148 Ky. l.s:{ i , 248. Grow V. Selifj^man (47 Mich. 607 1 , 181, 252. (irier Bros. Co. v. Baldwin (219 Fed. Rep. 735), 282, 369, 371. (irigga. Cooper & Co. v. Erie Pre- serving Co. (131 Fed. Rep. 359 ) , 23, 59, 327, 428. (irillon V. Guenin (W. X. 1877, p. 14), 130, 144, 444. (Jrimm v. Walker (45 Iowa, 106 1, 231. Grocer's .Tournal v. Midland Pul>. Co. (127 Mo. App. 366), 43. Grocers' Supply Co. v. Dupuia (Mass.) (107 N. E. Rep. .389), 338. Grossman v. Griggs (186 Mass. 275), 68. Gruber Almanack Co. v. Swinghy (103 Md. 362), 446. Guilhon v. Lindo (9 Bos. 605 1 , 437. (Juinness v. Heap (Seb. 617), 377. v. Ullmer (10 L. T. 127 1 , 279, 298, 304. Gulden v. Chance (163 Fed. Rep. 447), 119, 333. xlviii TAHLK OF CASKS. Gut-Har Rffrrtnct s nrr ^^ jukjcs. (luth V. (lutli ('li(H-()lat.- Co. (140 l\ V. A. 4l(M. 17!». (iutli rhocolato I'o. V. (;iith (il.'i Ft-il. Hop. 750). 17!>. (;. W. Cole V. CoK-'h Oil C... (117 Fill. R.'p. 0.30), 4:iS. U. W. .1. Murphy Co. v. M-tiil Stampinjj Co. (^14 Frd. Hep. 382), 448. H TIapan Jl Dodd Co. v. Righers ( 1 C.a. App. 100), 41.3. Hajron V. Beth (118 Cal. 330), 4.V2. Happ V. Dnrlpy (47 L. .1. Ch. 507), 250. Ilainipio V. Cyclops Iron Works lao Calif. 35), .32.">. Hall V. Barrows (32 L. J. Cli. 54S i , 64. V. BarrowH (4 DeC. .1. &. S. 150), 10, 115, 109. 212, 223. 227, 305, 307, 340, 342, 443. V. Hall (20 B.iiviin, l.S'.h, 222, 227. Hall & Riuki'l V. In-riim (120 (>. C 750), 334. V. Inpram (28 App. D. C. 4.54), 129. Hall Mfp. Co. V. WcBtern St«(l & Iron Works (227 Fed. U.p. 588. .592), 235. Hall Saf.- &. Lock Co. v. H.-rrinp- Haii-Marvin Saf.- Co. (74 C. C. A. 301 I, 175. HalBcy V. Brothi-rliood (45 L. T. N. R, 040), 54. Halatcad v. Houston (111 F.-d. R.p. 370), 347, 370. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. W«df Bros. & Co. (240 V. S. 25! i, {•H, 114. .324. 4.'.0. Hamilton Mfp. Co. v. Tul.lm Mfp. Co. (210 F.-d, K.p. 401), 25S, 201, 200, 334. Hammond v. Bniiikcr (9 R. V. C. 301). 31, 215. V. Douplas (5 Ves. .530), 223. Handy v. Commander (49 La. .Ann. 1119), 424. 440. Hanford v. Westcott (Fed. Case No. 0022 I. 544. V. W.stcott ( 10 OIL Caz. USD. 122. 510. Hanks Dental .Xsun. v. Interna- tional Tooth Crown Co. (194 r. S. 303). 480. Hanley v. Fil>y (Fed. Case No. 0107). 140, 141. V. Lihhy (14 Blatchf. 128), 270. Harris v. Brown (202 Pa. 10), 183. Harrison v. Taylor (11 .lur. .V. S. 408), 29 J. Harryman v. Harryman ( IM I'ae. Hep. 202), 1.5. Harsehltarper v. Fliy (Idaho) (150 Par I!, p. 019 1, 249. Ilur ilie TAHM'; OK CASKS. xlix UrfircnccN arc to jxnjiH. HarH(.n v. Ilalkvanl (22 II. I. 102), 174, 17.'). Hart V. ("<>ll.-y (7 U. I'. C '.•:»!, -Wi . V. Siiiilh ( l.'.lt hid. 1H2). 22U. llHrtcIl V. X'iiicv ( Fed. Case No. (;i.".si , 1(1(1. Hartslioni v. F'liill.rick (C. D., 1!>02. J). 427), r).")l. Hatcliard v. Mi-f;.- (I.. 1!. IH Q. H. 1). 771), :">.-), 401. Havana ('(Hiiincrcinl Co. v. XicholH (!;-);-> Fed. Rep. 302), 124, 207, •A21. Hawlcy v. Dniin.lly (« I'aigc, 415), 47('». Hay & 'I'odd Mfjr. Co. v. Querns lirotlicrs (,St; Off. Gaz. 132.'} I, 10, i");}!!. ;■)")!. Hazard v. Caswell ( .'m How. I'r. li, V. Caswell {0:5 X. Y. ^2'^'^, 202), 31. 401. Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazelton Tri- pod Boiler Co. (142 111. 404), «;-), 187, ISO. V. Tripod Boiler Co. (142 111. 404), ;").-) 1. Hazlett V. Pollack Stojrie Co. (11.") C. C. A. 30), 447. Uazzopulo V. Kaufmann (23 Sol. .T. 810), 378. H. B. \Vip<,Mns Sons' Co. v. Cott-A- Lap Co. (ICO Fed. Rep. 150), 257. Heath v. American Book Co. (07 Fed. Rep. 533), 364. V. Wright (3 Wall. .Jr., 1), 7S, 124. Hecht V. Porter (0 Pac. C. L. .T. 569), 123, 308, 430. Hepeman v. He<,'eman ( 8 Daly, 1 ) , 28. 30. V. O'Byrne (0 Daly. 264), 442, 443. Heide v. Wallace & Co. (120 Fed. Rep. 640. 650). 48, 314. Heinz V. Lilt/. (116 Pa. 502/, .305. Heller & Merz Co. V. Shaver (102 Fed. Rep. 882), 216. Helinhold V. Helmhr)ld 'SU^. Co. (53 How. Pr. 4.53), 81, 104. HenneHHV & Co. v. Dompe ( 10 K. P. C. 3.33, .3.30), 460. V. Keating (2.'> R. P. C. 125, 361 i, 460. Hennes.sy v. HraiiMs<"liweiper (80 Fed. Rej.. 664). 10, 66. 217. 385. 3!I2, 420. 532. 535, .545, 546, .547. V. Budde (82 Fed. Rep. .541), 474, 404. V. Herrmann (8!» Fed. Rep. 060 1 , 20.5, 208, 302, .303, 415, 430, 546, 800. V. Ho{,'an (6 W. W. i: AB. i;<|. 225), 316, 442. V. Kennett (Seh. 556), 437, 442. V. Wheeler (51 How. Pr. 4.57), 445. V. Wheeler (60 X. Y. 271), 70. V. White (6 W. W. & A'B. E(j. 216), 316, 442. V. Wilmerdin;,'-Loewe Co. ( 103 Fed. Rep. 90), 4.30, 461. Henning v. Boyle (112 Fed. Rep. 397), 484, 485. Henry v. Cherry & Wel.b (30 R. 1. 13), 277. Herbert v. Dupaty (42 La. Ann. 343), 222, 234, 230. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall's Safe Co. (208 U. S. v,M, 560), 30, 193. Herz V. Lowcnstein (40 App. D. C. 277), 550. Hetterman v. Powers (102 Ky. 133), 62, 670. Heiihlein v. Adams (125 Fed. Rep. 782), 26. 65, 72. 118. Hickman v. Link (IK; Mo. 12.? i, 216. Hier v. Abrahams (82 X. Y. 510 1 . 127, 141, 142. 320, 442. TAIU.K t»F CAShLS. Hig-Ilol HiUjriiiH V D.ikin fn:t N. V. Supi.. HJK)). 7^ti. V. K.ulT.l (l«(i r. S. 4-2S), -)1:j, r.M. r.m. HiK'jrinH Co. V. HiK'K'inH Snap Co. h'tfrrrntys an' to pagm. IliiHt V. Di'tiham ( K. U. U K.j. :.4'2), 124. 12r>. 12!>. II. MiH'llir Mffj. To. V. .\. V. MoDon- aly & Mtininon Mfj;. Co. ( 132 ImmI. K.-|). ."»S.-., :.8H). 4:)2. (144 N. Y. 4(52 I. 177. 17". IX"'. , ^ A. V. Mi. 47 1». V. MtUonal.l (ItU MasH. l(l).21>0. V. Sj.arks Mf^. Co. (!•!» K.-<1. R.>p. 4S4 1 . 2!tS. 40."), 4.')S. Hill V. LiKkwood (:12 Ft-tl. Ki'p. 389). .37. rtl, KU. 402. Hillman v. Star Vuh. Co. ((',4 Wash. «ni>. 27(5. llillsidi- Chcmioal Co. v. MiinKoii (14r> Fed. Hop. 1".>S). 300. Hilwn V. LiMn-y (44 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 12), 60. Hilson Co. V. Fo.ster (SO l'.«l. Hop- 81)6-85»7 ) . 43. Co. (If. J 1-vd. ir.-p. loon. 122. 2!»3. Iloanlainl v. S.-;.-ur ( :<.S N. .1. Law. 237). 242. Ilobb.s V. Kraiiiais (10 ll«)\v. Pr. .".(57 ) . 7'.>. Hoir V. Tarrant & Co. (71 V>-d. Ui'P- 103). 2!). Hopp V. Kirhy ( 8 Vi-s. 21.-)), 1!I8. Hohner V. (!rat/. (.12 F«k1. Rep. 871), 177. V. (;rat/. (.".0 Fed. \U]K 3«50 ) , 449, 473. lloll.r(.ok V. Nesl.itt ( 1113 Mass. 120), 231, 230. 244. V. Tolu-v (ti<5 Ml-. 410 1.248. nil,.' V. Lart (10 .Tur. ll»(5). 120. | i|„i,,pr„„f Hosiery Co. v. Fitts (167 147. 400 Hiririclis v. lifrndt's [Vox. Manual. -.04). .-.3. llippravf V. Case ( L. U. 28 Cli. U. 3.".6). 2.->l. Hiram Molt Co. v. Wadswortli (41 Ftd. K<'|). 34). 8!). 03. 12.-). 328. Hiram Riikcr & Sons v. Leifili (77 N. Y. Supi". .-.40). 313. ' Hiram Walker i Sons v. Cnil.niiui (224 F<'d. Ri-p- 72.".). 1(57. 3.-.8. V. Crubman (222 IVd. R«'p. 478, 470), 287. 370. V. Hookstaedi-r (8.". F.d. K.p. 77<5), 280. 324. V. Mikolas (70 F.-d. K-'p. 0."..". i 108. Hirt'H V. Hires (0 I'a. Dis. 1'.. ■2><:y) 280. Hirwh V. .Iona« ( L. I:. 3 CI.. I). .".«4 580 ) . 02. Hitchcock V. Cok.-r (0 .\."..-.). 4154. v. Wallacli Hros. ( 1(57 Fed. Rep. 373). 4(54. V. Wallaeh Bros. ( 100 F^^l. Hep. (iO()). 122. Hollis V. SbalTer (HS Kas. 402). 234. llolloway V. lloiloway (13 Reav. 200), 171, 177. 44.".. Holmes, Rootli i TTaydena v. Hobnes llootii & Atwoof<-rK Composition Co. v. RaM- jen'-. Anieriean C.)n\p.)silion Co. , iv:t r s. 1, s», S3. 447. Hoo-Hum TAHM': t)K CASKS. 11 Rcfvrtnri-H iin: to jiaycH. IIiK)sicr Drill Co. v. Iiij;tis (11 Id. I HoiicIich.h v. iloiiclicns (It.") .Md. 37), 7S.-.), ilO'i. :>!(). lloj.kiiis V. ,HitcliofK-k (11 C. H. N. S. d.".), ;}4I>, :J4ii. Uojikiiis Atiiuscmi'tit ('(•. v. I'rolimnii CiO'i 111. .'.41 ), '204. lliirlick's Food Co. v. EIra- tory Co. (20.-) 111. 407), MiH. Hostcttor V. Adams (10 Fed. Ri'p. 838), 2Sfi, 200, 337, 344, 345. V. Adams (20 Blatchf. 326), 100. V. Anderson ( 1 \V. W. & A'R. Eq. 7), 313, 337. V. Becker (73 Fed. Rej). 207), 327. V. Bower ( 74 Fed. Rep. 235 ) , 314, 4t;8. V. Bnu'jigeniiui-Ri'iiiai-t Distilliuj^ Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 188), 313. V. Brunn (107 Fed. Rep. 707), 437. V. Comerford (07 Fed. Rep. 585), 314, 460. V. Conron (111 Fed. Rep. 737), 313. V. E. CJ. Lyons Co. (00 Fed. i\v\). 734), 441. V. Fries (17 Fed. Rep. 620), 6, 313. V. Gallajrlier Stores (142 Fed. Rep. 208), 313. V. Martinoiii (110 Fed. Wt-p. 524), 314. V. Sommers (84 Fed. Rep. 333), 313. V. Van Vorst (62 Fed. Rep. 600), 318, 402. V. Vowinkle ( Fed. Case No. 6714) . 327. 444. 456, 470. V. Wm. Schneider Co. ( 107 Fed. Rep. 705), 313. 445. IIov.ikIiii v. I.ioyd ( IS W . |{. 1132), 33. Howard \. iliMiirpicH ( 3 San Diihtcr Co. v. Carle- ton (210 Fed. Rep. 013, 016). 345. Howe V. Howe Sewiiijr Mucliine Co. (50 Barb. 236), 172. V. McKernon (30 lieav. 547), 68. 471, 472. v. Searing' ( lo .Mil). I'l. 264), 20, 231. Howe Scale C'o. v. WyekolF, Seaman-. cV Benedict (108 U. S. 118), 66, 175, 176, 187. llo.vie V. Chancy (143 Mass. 502), 20, 30, 70, 115. ISl, 227, 230. 232. Iloyt V. Tlolly (30 Conn. 326), 225. V. Iloyt ( 143 I'a. St. 623). 5. 17. 21. v. J. T. Lovett Co. (71 Ft-d. lU-p. 173), 104. Mubhack v. Wilkinson. 1800 (1 Q. B. 00, 01), r^-K 433. Hubbard v. Miller (27 Mich 15). 235. 242. Hudson V. Osborne (30 L. J. Ch. 70), 31, 212, 213. 222. V. Osborne (21 L. T. N. S. 386). 355. HulT V. Wallace (X. T. Ch.. 03 Atl. Rep. 702), 116. Hughes V. Alfred H. Smith Co. (205 Fed. Rep. 311 ). SO. .564. V. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. ( 18 Fed. Rep. 106. 110). 43(i. Humphreys' Homeopathic Medicine Co. V. Hilton (60 Fed. Rcji. 756), 330. lii TAHLK OK CAShX. Hum lilt Rcfrrttui n til JIum|»hn'\ k' SjH'cilif Mi-il. Co. v. Wt'nr. (14 Vci\. Hi'i>. 2:.i»). tl. V.K lU.-i. 327. IVMK Hunt V. Manirn- ( :U H.av. i:.7i.40.-). V. New York (.'ottt»n Kxclianjjf (2o:. r. s. ;i2-2, :j.j.hi. .wm. Hiirricatu- I'nli-iit l.Hntfrn Co. v. Miil.T cr. iinw. I'r. 2:u), 3:i:J. lIutoliiDMiii V. niiiinluT^ (.")1 Kf«l. Hep. S2!»). 12n. 44S. 4!>2. V. Cov.Tt (.-.1 I".-.l. I5.-J1. S;{2), 12!t. 331. V. Na.v ( 1S7 Ma), 31. 401. II. \V. .lolins-Manvilh' Co. v. Aim-r- ican S. P. Co. (33 App. I). C. 224 I . o67. Ilyams v. Old Dominion Co. (204 Kod. Rep. 6S1). 433. Hypeia Distilled Water Co. v. Con- solidate«l Ic-e Co. (144 Fed. Hej). 13!l». 22. 123. V. Hyp'ia Ice Co. (40 Atl. .■):U. 5401, 8. V. Ilypeia lee Co. (1) (70 I'onn. 516 ). 123. V. Hypeia Ice Co. (2) 72 Conn. fi46l. 123. Ilypienic Fleeced Underwear Co. v. Way (70 C. C. A. .VVl ) , 107, 12(5, 33.-.. V. Way (133 Fed. Rep. 24.".), 441. ]I>-man v. Solis Cipar Co. (4 Colo. App. 47.-) I, 64, 70. IllinoiH Hydraulic Cement Mfp. Co. V. rti<-u Hydraulic- Cement Co. ( 120 (». (•. 2.')02), r.77. Illinoin Wateh Co. v. F.Ipin Nat. Watch Co. (04 Fed. Hep. 667), 52, 102, It;.-., 3H0, 305, 532. f I'l inlijfs. hnan v Ink8tl.er Coml. Co. v. Rubber Com'; Co. (45 N. Y. Super. Ct. R. 258). 177. V. .Jewelry Co. (45 N. V. Sup. ft. 2.".S), 330. Indurated Fil.re Cn. v. Amonkeap lndurate\\(l«r In. (3.'! App. 1). C. 137 I. 110. 1ntt>rnationaI Silver Co. v. Ropers (71 N. .1. Ivj. 560), 176. V. Ropers (72 \. .1. i:<|. 033), 176. V. Ropers Urns. Cutlery ('«.. (13(5 Ted. Rep. 1010), 182. 330. V. Ropers Corp'n. (66 N. J. E. (ll.J Im<1. Rep. 520), J77. Intermitioiial Society v. liitcnia- tional Society (.'.!) N. ^'. Siipj). 78-)), :n2. V. Wm. II. Rogers Corp. (. 248), 214. Armstrong & Co. (20 MSS. I). 200), 538. Artesian Mfg. Co. (37 Apj». I). C. 113). 503. Atkins Filter Co. (3 P. P.. 104), 110. A u s t r a 1 i a n \\ iiic Imjiorti-rs Ltd. (41 Ch. 1). 278-281), l..v. h. /.././..v. liir liir In n- nri^hnm (Conim Dccis., ISSl, p. :«Si. ."lOT. Hriiu-nt {2:u K.-.l. \\,\,. Sll. SKii. 4(M». Hriiniolclrrv in. (Newton, I>i)». liiOi. 1:J7. IJnH.k ('Jd \\ . i;. T'.U I. .•{«(». Hurp.yiir ((! I{. r. C. 227), HA. Hiisli A: Co. (10 DIT. Gar.. 104), 117. :)0!». luhii. H.'lt A ("o. (27 App. 1). C. 17;»i, .')(>4. California Kij; Syrup Co. ( L. H. 40 Ch. 1). 020 1. 100. Carl Lind.>). r)0!», r>io. (•irnwall ( 12 (MT. Caz. l.SS), 12!i, -ilo, ."•41. Cornwall & Co. (12 Oir. <;a/. :ii2i. 120, r.07, r)ii). Cn-cdmorf Cartrid^'' <^o. (.")('» id. i:i:<:h, mm. Cn-wcnt 'l'yp<'writ. (.'JO App. I). C. .•{24 I, lOS, .-)iil. r.»J2. DaviH Tra), 143. Tarina (2!t W. K. .391), 399. i'arina (27 \V. R. 406), 200. iarinu (44 I.. T. N. S. 00), 33. Fariiuni i; Co. (Coinin. Dci-ia., ISSO, p. l.').')i. .-):{7. Kinlayson. nousflfld &, Co. (01 Off. Ca/.. 1.V2), r.;{o. Fit/patriek. Davis & Co. ( IS MSS. D. 278), r)37. I'raiicis & Mallon (Comm. Dccis., is: I, p. 283), .-)07. Fnund HroH. ), 129. Codillot (0 Oir. (;a/.. 041), SOI. (loodall (42 Ch. D. 0(50), 13(5. Coodyear Ruhher Co. (11 Olf. (Jaz. 10021, 101, .M)7. Cordon (12 Oil. f5az. r.l7), r>08. (;81. Cralunn (2 (MT. Caz. 018 1, 107. Creen (8 Oir. Caz. 729), M)7. CroHsuiitli (00 I,, r. N. S. 012), 120. C.roMBiuitli (0 R. r. C. 180), 211. liir Inr TAIJIJ; OF CA.SE.S. UcftnnciH arc to ixujcu. Iv 111 re rirovc ((17 oir. (J«/. 1147), 1:57, In !■• lolm <• Dow.l & Co. (C. I)., litds. p. i;t4i, -,r.n. .loiiiiHoii (-1 otr. Cii/.. :n."»), m.'.. lOH. .Fours (:..! L. T. I 1. :{2. .loniiiii (J!) Kcd. Kcp. 2:18), 4»I7. Kiimpf.- Hnm. (")« MSS. I). .'{(Xi), Kiuir & Co. (!» (Xr. Caz. lOfn, 270, r)()8. K.asl..-y & Mattison Co. (100 U. S. 221), 3!)3, 394, 3'.)5, 415. Kimi)all (Comm. DceiH., 1S87, p. 54), 538. Kimhall (11 U(T. Oaz. llOit). 504. \\\\\il)\t (38 MSS. 1). 341), 537. Kuhn & Co.'s Trademark (53 L. J. Ch. 238), 136, 443, 4!»0. i.a Soci^t^ Anonymo des Verre- ric8 dp I'Estoilf (10 R. P. C. 436), 321. Lawrence & Co. (10 OfT. Caz. 163), 148, 507. Leonard & Ellis' Trademark (2«5 ("h. D. 288), 88. Lisner (13 Off. Gaz. 455), 503. Lisner (Comm. Decis., 1878, p. 46), 537. Magnolia Metal Company's Trade- marks (14 K. r. C. 621, 627). 165. Maignen's Ap])lieation (2S \V. R. 759), 121. Manny & Co. (17 :M.SS. D. 155), 537. Manske & Co. (64 Off. Gaz. 858), 535. Mark Cross Co. (116 (). (J. 2534), 584. Maw, Son & Tliompsoii (22 MSS. D. 403), 537. McMulltMi's Estate (157 N. Y. S. 655), 249. Meyer Bros. Cofft-e & Spice Co. (32 App. 1). C. 277), 98, 563. 507. 541. llaggennuicliir (60 ( )ff. ( laz. 438 ) . 536. Hall ( i;t Oir. Ca/. 22'.l). 211, 507. HatikinsoM (S oil". Gaz. SO i , .'-)03, 532, 53S. Hanson's Trademark (5 I J. P. C. 130). 2S7. Harden Fire K.\tin;.',uislier Co.'s Trademark (.'.-) L. .). Cli. 596), 104. Hautiiaway (I), (Ctmim. Deeis.. 1S71, p. 97), 507. Hautiiaway (2). ((oinm. Deeis., 1871, p. 284), 507. Hayward & Sons (54 L. .1. Ch. 1003), 136. Heaton's Trademark ( L. It. 27 Ch. D. 570), 79. Ilendl.-y (72 Off. Gaz. 1654), 541. Holt & Co.'s Trademark, C. A. (L. R., 1891, 1 Ch. 711), 130. Hopkins (29 App. D. C. 118), 108, 561, 562. Horshurgh (53 L. .7. Ch. 237 1 , 113, 131, 301. Ilorton (45 Law T., N.S., 541), 242. Hudson's Trademark (3 M. V. C. 155), 63. Hyde & Co. (7 Ch. D. 724), 136. Imhs (10 Off. Gaz. 463), 510. India Ruhber Comh Co. (8 Off. Gaz. 905), 509, 510. India Ruhher Comtt Co. (KiMSS. D. 38), 537. Indian Portland Cement Co. (30 App. D. C. 463), 559. Jackson Companys Trademark (6 R. P. C. 80), 145. Jclley, Son & Jones (51 L. J. Ch. 639), 307, 467. J. :Marsching & Co. (15 Off. Gaz. 294), 541. Ivi TAHl.i: t)K CASKS. [nrliir licfriiiirtx arc /<» puijrs. In r.' M.'v.-r Hros. ColT.-.' A Spitv lo. In r.' Uiiilton ('2.-) MSS. I). :»21 ), r)41. (:»S App. 1). l". .ViOi. 11-2. MrytTsUMii (7 j:. 1'. I'. n»i. iin. MilU-r (:>4 L. .1. CU. 20:. i, 4;{ti. Mitihi'll (L. U. 2S cli. 1). m»h, 399. Mitdu'll (L. K. 7 (li. I). :5C.). 340. Moot & I'liiinaon (IS MSS. I). 2r)9), 535, National Candy (.o. (:!.') App. D. C. 351), 12(!. National Cht-niical Co. ( l:?4 iK G. 1298), 575. National IMionojrrapli Co. (C. 1)., 1907. p. 5.">0), 5()1. National Phonofjrapli Co. (29 App. D. C. 142). 111. New South Brewory & let- Co. (;52 App. D. C. 591), 101. O'Donnell (Fed. Case No. I04:{4i, 531. PalmiT (24 ( h. 1). 504 1 . 91. !>9, 136. PalmtT (L. 15. 21 Cli. U. 47 i , 418. Park (12 OIT. Gaz. 2), 502, SOS. Parker (13 otF. Gaz. 323), 501, 508. Perry Davis & Son (58 L. T. N. S. 095), 9. Pierce (23 MSS. D. 10), .'.37. Porter Blancliard'H Sons (Comni. Decis., 1871, p. 97 1 , 507, 509. Pratt & Farmer (10 nir. Gaz. 800), 507. Price's Patent Candle Co. ( L. K. 27 Cli. I). OKI), 107. Proctor, .Ir. (51 oil". (Jaz. 1785i, 541. Ralione (Sel.. 042 i , 307. Hader (13 < HF. Gaz. 590 1 , 105, .508. Uadrr &i Co. (Connn. D.iis., IH7S, p. 07), 507. Hailton (Newton. Dij;. 213). 147. Randall's Estate (8 N. V. Siij.p. 0.V2). 222. 240. Kieiiardson (3 Oil. Gaz. 120 i, 109, .507. lliviere's Trademark (I.. \\. 20 Cli. 1). 53 1. 437. Itivierc (53 I.. T. N. S. 237), 402. lloaeli ( 10 ttir. Gaz. 333 1 , lOl. .".07. Roberts (ll. (Comm. Deeis. 113i, 509. IJol.erts (2i, (Comm. Deeis. 100), .509. Kol.erts (3), (Comm. D.eirt. 101), 509. Kol.erts (4,. (Comm. Deeis. 100) , .507. Rohland (10 GIL Gaz. !t80), 120, 507. Rotherham (29 W. R. 503), 144. Rothschild (7 OtF. (Jaz. 220), 502, 539. Rul.l.er Clothinj; Co. (10 OIT. (Jaz. Ill), 510. Rust (29 \V. R. 393,, 399. Rowe & Post (9 Oir. (Jaz. 490), 509. Safety Remedy C(.. (35 Ap[.. D. C. 353), 9!). Sanitas Co. (4 1{. P. C. 533). 143. Saunion & Co. (Co.\, Manual, No. 625), 79, 98. S. C. Herl.st Importiuf^ Co. (30 App. D. C. 297), 118, .559. Schmidt (53 MSS. D. 7 ) , 535. Simpson & Sons (10 Off. Gaz. 3.33), 501. Snook (2 Hilt, 500), 171. Societe Anonyme Duhonnet (31 R. P. C. 453, 408), 141. Speer's 'i'rademark (4 R. P. G. 521), 321. Jnr-Jur TABLE OP CASES. Itefcrcnccn nrc to patjf^s. Ivii In re Stiindard Unu"l<' Co. (-27 App. I). C. :{2()), nr.'i. Swczt-y («»2 How. I'r. 215), :{1. Sykes (4.S l>. T. N. S. (i2()), O:?. Talbot (8 K. T. C. 14<)|, 102. Tampa SuI)Ui1jum K. Co. (1(>S V. S. r)83), 4()r.. Thayer (r)4 OIF. (Jaz. 1)57), 5:50. The Australian Wine Importers Ltd. (I.. K. 41 Ch. D. 278, 281). 5. llii-wlia & Hlakey's Trademark (10 IJ. r. C. 309), 323, 332. Tliomas (14 OIT. Gaz. 821), 50(5, 508. Tliomaa (35 Fed. Rep. 337), 485. Tolle (2 OJr. Gaz. 415), 15!», 418, 507. \'idvard & Sheehan (8 OfT. Gaz. 143), 503, 505. Volta Belt Co. (8 Oil. Gaz. 144), 504, 537. Walden Bros. Clothinj,' Co. (109 Fed. Rep. 315), 4()9. Warburg (13 Oil. Gaz. 44), 100, 507. Watson (10 MSS. D. 407), 538. Weaver (10 Off. Gaz. 1), 125, 505, 540. Weisman (Xewton, Dig. 119), 147. Welch (137 X. Y. S. 941), 249. Wellcome (L. R. 32 Ch. D. 213), 27, 30. Western Electric Co. (39 App. 1). C. 420), 105. Whitaker (Newton's Dig. 130), 279. Whiteley (43 L. T. X. S. 027), 307. Whyto (Comm. Decis., 1871, p. 304), 501. Worthington's Trademark (L. R. 14 Ch. D. 8), 287, 323, 408. In re Wriglit & Taylor (33 App. 1). C. 510), 503. Wright, CroHhIey & Co.'h Appli- cation (17 R. P. C. 386), 217. Jackson v. Aahton (8 Pet. 148), 414. V. Byrnes (103 Tenn. 098;, 231. V. Morgan (49 Ind. App. 370), 305. .Jacobs V. Beecliam (221 U. S. 203). 82. Jacoby & Co. v. Lopez & Co. (23 Off. Gaz. 342), 511, 545. .lacoway v. Young (228 Fed. Rep. 030), 120, 200, 395. .Jaeger's Sanitary W. S. Co. v. Le Boutillier (47 Hun, 521), 20. .Jaffe V. Evans & Sons, Ltd. (75 X. Y. Supp. 257), 137. .James v. .Tames (L. R. 13 Eq. 421), 100, 177. 253, 430. V. Parry (3 R. P. C. 340), 141. .lames B. Sipe Co. v. Cohimbia Re- fining Co. (171 Fed. Rep. 295), 200. .Jameson v. Dublin Distillers' Co. 1900 (Ir. Ch. 43), 170. .James Van Dyk Co. v. F. V. Reilly Co. (130X. Y.'S. 755), 221. Janney v. Pan-Coast Ventilator Mfg. Co. (128 Fed. Rep. 121), 217, 329. V. Pan-Coast Ventilator & ?klfg. Co. (2), (131 Fed. Rep. 143 1 , 476. ,]. & P. Baltz Brew. Co. v. Kaiser- l.rauerei. Beck & Co. (20 C. C. A. 402), 10.5. ,T. & P. Coats V. .John C:oates Thread Co. (135 Fed. Rep. 177, 179), 188. .J. & R. Carr v. Schollhorn Co. (C. D., 1912, p. 222), 572. iviii TAlil.i; (IF CASKS. Jur-.Iim I'rfrrrncts iii .laros rntliTWi-ar Co. v. Fli-ccc I'li dirwcar I'o. (•>() Fed. Kcp. i\l-2<. HI"), 4(>.'>. Jnros llycit'iiir I'lult rwciir Co. v. KK'i'ci" H_v;,'iriiio l'n(l»T\v«-nr Co. (Of) F.d. Kip. 424), 440. V. Simons (4'.l Fod. Ilrji. 27(> i , r>2. ,F. A. Scrivrn Co. v. (Jinirci Co. ( 1 10 Fi'd. n.'p. H»4l. :12(). V. Morris (l.')4 F.-d. Urp. '.114, JUS), 1:J!». V. Towlrs Mfg. Co. (32 App. D C. :J21t. r)70. .Jay V. Lndl.T (ti M. \\ C. l.Mi), ir)2. 307. J. C. Hul)in;,'fr Hros. Co. v. I'.ddy (74 Fi'd. Rep. T).-)!), 440. Jefferson v. Markit (112 (Ju. 4!)S), 242. Jonninps v. Johnson (37 Ftd. Urp. 364), 20, ir)2. Jrromi' V. Jolinson (.")n N. Y. Supji. S.Mh, .303, 323. Jewelers* Mercantile Agency v. Jew- elers' Pul). Co. (IT)-) N. Y. 241), 261. Jewish Colonization Assn. v. Solo- mon (2 1, (ir)4 Fed. Rep. 157), 1(52. V. Solomon ( 12.'> Fed. l!.p. !t!>4, 995), 400. V. Solomon «Sc Germansky (l.")4 Fed. Rep. ir.7), 11^^, 128. ,1. F. Rowley Co. V. I'owley (l.')4 Fed. Rep. 744 1. 12S. 178. J. O. Mattingly Co. v. Mattingly (9(5 Ky. 4.30), 2H, 29, .39. V. Mattingly (17 Ky. L. It.p. li. 39. J. I. Caw Works v. J. I. (use Co. (162 Wis. 1H.^>), 354. lol) Printers* Union of C lii«-ago v. Kinsley (107 III App. 654), 301. .Inlin IJatt \ Co. V. Diiim.lt ( L. R., 1S99, A. C. 42S), 2ti. .lohn .Jameson v^ Son v. Reilly ( 153 N. V. S. 225), 756. .lol.n r. Dyer Co. v. Sehuylkill Stone Co. (185 Fed. Rep. 557), 99. .lolin T. Lewis Co. v. IMioenix Paint Co. ( 134 (>. C. 1049), .572. .lolins-.Manville Co. v. .Vmerican S. P. Co. (33 App. 1). C. 224), 570. Johnson & Jolinson v. Bauer &, Black (27 C. C. A. 374), 286, 321, 323, 470. V. Seahury & Johnson (71 N. J. Kq. 750 ) , 445, V. Seahnry & Jolinson ((>! Atl. Rep. 5), 72, 44(i. Johnson Educator Food Co. v. Syl- vanus Smith & Co. (174 O. G. 1027), 567. Johnson v. Brandau (32 App. D. C. 348), 99. V. Brandau (134 O. G. 2.57), 568, 56!). V. Brunor (107 Fed. Rep. 466), 286. V. Friediioir (27 N. Y. Supp. 982), 249. V. Hitchcock (.! N. Y. Supp. 680), 312, 319. V. Moss (45 Cal. 515), 234. V. (»rr Fwing (7 App. Cas. 219, 228), 17, 43, 337. V. Sclieiick (Fed. (.'as. No. 7412), 8. V. S«'anian ( los Fed. Rep. 951), 93. .(olinson .'^teil Street Rail Co. v. Nortli Branch Stetd Co. (48 Fed. Rep. 191), 263. .lones V. Andrews (10 Wall. 327), 414. V. G«M)de (28 Oliio Cir. Ct. Rep. 475), 264. Jon-Kid TAIU-K OK CASIiS. lix h'rfcn nccH Jones V. KiiowlcH (1 ( raiidi ('. ('. 523), 4H.-). Joseph I5aiii;iaii l!uM»r Co. v. Blo(.iiiiii<,'^. Kid-Lai ItffrrtnaK ore to pages. Kidd V. Johnson ( 100 T. S. f.lT ) , 22, 20. :U. -MK r.R, 12.). ISl, 213, 22:{. :»»o. Kidd & Co. V. MIIIh. .loliiison <1 Co. (.'• Itir. (inz. :\M). 12.".. :{!•!». Kinahan v. Holton ( Ifi Ir. Cli. 7.'>), :»40. .ui, :ws. V. Kinnlian (15 Ir. Cli. 7;")), 204. Kinpsloy v. .Jnoohy (20 N. Y. .'^upp. 44 ) , :j.'>u. Kinnov v. Allm (1 Thi<.,'li(H loti). 33!». 508. V. Basch (Soil. 542), 30, 130, 341. V. Uascli ( 10 Am. Law Hog. N. S. 596), 320. Kinney Tol). Co. v. MalK-r (53 Hiin, 340), 130. Kipling: v. Ci. P. Putnam's S. (42 Fed. Rep. 3781, 467. Koelx'I V. Chicago Landlord's Pro- tective Bureau (210 Ills. 176), 328. Kohler V. .Sanders (122 N. Y. 65), 79, 10.-.. Kohler Mfg. Co. V. Beeshorc (2), (50 Fi-d. Rep. 572-574), 27, 254, 334. 386. V. B.'esliore (8 C. C. A. 215), 217, 386. V. Beeshore (1), (53 Fed. Rep. 262-264), 386, 537. Kostering v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. (.54 C. C. A. 76), lis. .307. 345. Kramer v. Old (110 N. C. I), 242, 24S. Krauss v. Jos. R. Pt-ebles' Sons Co. (58 Fed. Rep. 585), 77, 316, 417, 442. Kroegher v. McConway & For ley Co. ( 149 Pa. St. 444-457 ) , 265. Krontlial Waters v. Becker (137 Fed. Rep. 640, 6.'.2 1 , 30. Kroppf V. Furst (04 Fed. Rep. 150). 51, 52. Kutroff V. Cassella Color Co. (12!» O. (;. 3150), 569. Kyle V. Perfection Mattress Co. (127 Ala. 30), 127. L. & B. Mfg. Co. V. Barthcla Mfg. Co. (221 Fed. Rep. 456, 450), 8. La))OUchere v. Dawson ( L. R. 1.3 i:<|. 322), 240. Laclaiuha Battery Co. v. Western Electric Co. (21 Fed. Rep. 538), 451. Lacroix v. Kscobal (37 La. .Vnn. 5331, .503, .530. I.H Croix V. May (15 Fed. Rej). 236), 66, 68, .547. V. Sarrazzin (15 Fed. Rep. 480), 407. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French ( 18 ilow. 404), 414. Laird V. Wilder (2 Bush, Ky., 131), 70. Lai -Lea TADLK OF CASES. Ixi liefcrcnccs or Lalanct' &, GroHJcmi Mf;,'. C"(). v. Nu- iionul Miuirnt'liiij,' & Siiinij)!!!;^ Co. (100 Fi'd. Hep. ini), 2H(i. Laral) V. EvanH ( L. K., 1802, :{ Ch. 4(i2), 2.".H, 2(51. Lamlx-rt Pharmucal di. v. IJolton Chem. Corp. (210 Kcd. K.p. IVirt), 12;-), .{28. V. Kalish IMiannacy (21!t l-'id. Hep. :i2;j ) , 12.->, :<28. Lamont v. Leedy (8H Fed. Rep. 72), 101, 430. Lamont, Corliss & Co. v. Ilershey (140 Fed. Hep. 7G3), 5:$, 205. Lampert v. Judf^e & Dolpli Druj^ Co. (110 Mo. App. 003), 3 IS, 410, 420. V. JudiiQ & Dolpli Drug Co. (238 Mo. 400), 318, 410, 420. Lamplough v. Balnicr (\V. N., 1807, p. 203), 82. Lanahan v. John Kiasel & Son ( 13;! Fed. Rep. 800), 122, 440. Lendreth v. Landreth (22 Fed. Rep. 41), 174, 177, 28(5. Lane v. Smythe (40 X. J. Ec]. 443- 454), 222. Lang V. Creen River Dist. Co. (33 App. D. C. .300), 122, 560, 570. Lantz Bros. &. Co. v. Schnltz & Co. (0 Off. Gaz. 701), 510. Lare v. Harper & Bros. (80 Fed. Rep. 481), 4.V2, 470. La Republique Francaise v. .'"^ara- toga Vichy Springs Co. (00 Fed. Rep. 733), 473. V. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. (101 U. S. 427, 435), 102. V. Saratoga Mch,v Springs Co. (40 C. C. A. 418), 103. V. Sehultz (42, C. C. A. 233), 206. V. Sehultz (4). (115 Fed. Rep. 106), 35. •c to jiayis. Lu Hepuhli(jue Franeaiae v. Sehultz (57 Fed. Rep. 37), 8, 160. V. Sehultz (04 Fed. Rep. .500), 52. I.arkin Co. v. Pacific Coant Borax Co. (132 O. <;. 670), .571, .573. Larral)ee v. Lewin (67 Ga. 561 i, 6, 111. LaHhus V. CliamlM-rlain (6 I'tali, 385), 223, 240. Lauferty v. Wheel.-r ( 1 1 Ahh. X. C. 220), 86, 114, lOti. Laughman's Ajjpeal (128 Pa. 1), 30. Lavanburg v. PfeilFcr (06 N. Y. Supj). 30), 318. V. Pfeifler (52 N. V. Supp. 801), 318. Lavergne v. Hooper ( Ind. L. R. 8 Mad. 140), 210, 402, 417. Lawlor v. Charles H. Merritt & Son (78 Conn. 630), 63. V. Merritt (70 Conn. .309), 63. Lawrence v. Times Printing Co. (90 Fed. Rep. 24-26), 252. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Lowell ( 120 Mass. 325), 339, 341. V. Tennessee Mfg. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 776), 418. V. Tennessee Mfg. Co. (138 U. S. 537), 42, 47, 51, 04, 1.34, 149, 157. 172, 103, 214, 294, 20.5, .-)37. l.awson V. Bank of London (18 C. B. 84), 41,5. Lazenhy v. White (41 L. J. Ch. 3.-)4i, 104, 213, 214. Lea V. Deakin (Fed. Case Xo. 8154), 113, 159, 214. V. Millar (Seb. 513), 213, 214. V. Wolff (15 AbT). Pr. X. S. 1 ) , 108. 442. V. Wolff ( 13 Abl). Pr. X. S. 389 ) , 1.59. I..ahy V. Clover (10 R. P. C. 141), 443, 469. Ixii TABLE OP CASES. Lea-Lie Lean v. Flominp (0(> V. S. 24;')), 174. I.<»athor Clotli Case (11 II. L. C. r>23), 11, 33, 42, 182, 304. Lt-ather Cloth Co. v. AmiTican Loath.T Clotli Co. (4 IM!. .1. <*^ S. \M. 141 I. Iti. 2(1. 27, ICS, 424. V. American LriitluT Cloth Co. (3;*) L. .1. Cli. Un, 4. V. AmiTican Leather Cloth Co. (11 .Tur. N. S. r)13), 7!>, 83, 213. V. llirschfeld (1 X. K. T).")!), 85. V. Hirselifekl (2i, (1 H. & M. 29.-)), 471. V. Lorsont (L. K. !t Eq. 34.-)), 82. Leclancha Battery Co. v. Western Electric Co. (21 Fed. Rep. .')38), 452, 476. V. Western Klec. Co. (23 Fed. Rep. 276), 13!). Lee V. Haley (•") Ch. App. Cas. l.')")), 202, 442. V. Haley (22 L. T. X. S. 251), 206. V. Haley (21 L. T. X. S. 546), 39, 312. L«-hif;h Valley Coal Co. v. nanil)len (23 Fed. Rep. 225, 226), 187. Leidersdorf v. Flint (8 Bias. 327), r>, 378, .501. V. Flint (2), (50 Wis. 401), 422. Lemke v. Dietz (121 Wis. 102), 30. Lemoine v. dauton (2 E. D. Sniitli, 343), 22, 68, 213, 423. Leonard v. W.lls ( L. R. 26 Ch. D. 288), 131. V. White's Golden Lnl)rieatc)r Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 022), 131, 442. Lc Pa^e Co. v. Russian Cement Co. (2 C. C. A. 555), 20, 417, 421, 423. V. Russia Ccniciit (K. (51 Fed. Rep. 941), 176. References arc to pages. Lepou V. Kottler (100 X'. V. Supp. 779), 32. l.i prince v. Her & Morris (02 (XT. Oaz. 189), 539. Lester H. Greene Co. v. Scott & Bowne (159 O. G. 242), 563. L.v.r \. B.-dinjrfield (80 L. T. X. S. KtO), 50, 152. V. Goodwin (4 K. P. C. 492-.506), 152. Lever Bros. v. Pasfudd (88 Fed. Rep. 484), 130, 331, 469. Lever Bros., Ltd., Boston Works v. Smith (112 Fed. Rep. 908), 332. Levy V. Waitt (li. (.56 Fed. Rep. 10161, 26, 62, ir6. V. Waitt (2), (10 C. C. A. 227 i . 70, 72. V. Waitt (21 U. S. App. 294), 17. V. Waitt (61 Fed. Rep. 1008- 1011), 26, 62. 64. V. Walker (L. R. 10 Ch. D. 463), 29. Levy & Co. v. Uri (31 App. D. C. 441), .561. Levyeau v. Clements (175 Mass. 376). 260. L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co. (235 U. S. 88), 176. Lewis v. Bloede (202 Fed. Rep. 7, 24), 364. V. Chapman (3 Beavan, 133 1, 148. V. Goodwin (36 Ch. D. 1), 457. v. Klapprotli (11 Viet. L. R., E, 214). 418. V. Lanjrdon (7 Sim. 421), 20,244. Lewis & Xelson's Appeal (67 Pa. 1.53, 166), 445. L. H. Harris Dm;,' Co. v. Stueky (46 Fed. Pep. 624), 19, 101, 387, 5.32. 536, 510. Lichtenstein v. Goldsmitli (37 Fed. Rep. 359), 120, 216. Lie-Lud TABLE OP CASES. Ixiii References Liebig'a Extract Co. v. Ilanlmry (17 L. T. N. S. 208), 100, 214. Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. v. Lib- by, McNeill & Libby ( 103 Fed. Rep. 87), 106. V. Liebig Extract Co. (172 Fed. Rep. 158), 180. V. Walker (11.") Fed. Rep. 822), 106, 385. Liggett & Myers Tob. Co. v. Finzer (128 U. S. 182), 311, 335, 346. V. Hynes (20 Fed. Rep. 883), 10, 120, 279, 294, 302, 321, 345, 467, 508. V. Sam Reid Tob. Co. (104 Mo. 53), 129, 311, 424. hilienthal v. Drucklieb (84 Fed. Rep. 918), 251. Linde v. Bensel (22 Hun, 20 N. Y. Sup. Ct., 601), 398. Linoleum Mfg. Co. v. Nairn (L. R. 7 Cb. D. 834), 88, 100, 137, 171. Linton v. First National Bank of Kittanning (10 Fed. Rep. 804- 897), 171. Lippincott v. Hubbard (28 Pitts. L. J. 303), 28, 31. Lippman v. People (175 111. 101). 608. Listmail Mill Co. v. Wm. Listman Mill Co. (88 Wis. 334), 28. V. William Listman Milling Co. (60 N. W. Rep. 201), 125. Little V. Callus (38 N. Y. Supp. 487), 254, 256, 202. V. Kellam (100 Fed. Rep. 353), 331. Little jobn v. Mulligan (3 New Zea- land Rep. 446), 458. Livermore v. White (74 Me. 452), 216. Llewellyn v. Rutherford (L. R. 10 C. P. 456), 220. Lockport Canning Co. v. Pusateri (139 N. Y. S. 640), 125. are to pages. Lockwood V. Bostwick (2 Daly, 521), 116, 324. Lciewe V. Lawlor (130 Fed. Rep. 0.33), 370. V. Lawlor (208 U. S. 274), 370. Longman v. Tripp (2 Bos. & P. N. R. 67), 31. V. Winchester (16 Ves. 260), 100. Lord V. Whiteliead & Atherton Ma- chine Co. (24 I"\-d. Rep. 801), 420, 472. Lorillard v. Pride (28 Fed. Rep. 434), 89, 279, 281, 508, 538. V. Wight (15 Fed. Rep. 383), 281, 280, 508. Louis Bergdoll Brew. Co. v. Berg- doll Brew. Co. (218 Fed. Rep. 131, 132), 19, 581. liuuise &. Co., Ltd. V. Gainsborough (20 R. P. C. 61), 217. Love V. Rtidliam (18 App. D. C. 300), 242. Lovell-McConnell Mfg. Co. v. Amer- ican Ever-Ready Co. ( 195 Fed. Rep. 931), 371. Loven v. People (158 Ills. 159), 301. Low V. Fels (35 Fed. Rep. 301- 303), 4,54. V. Hall (47 N. Y. 104), 750. v. Hart (90 N. Y. 457), 404, 443. Lowe Bros. Co. v. Toledo Varnish Co. (108 Fed. Rep. 027), 122, 441. Lowell Manufacturing Co. v. Ear- ned (Fed. Case No. 8570), 508. V. Earned (Cox, Manual, No. 428), 65. Lucker v. Phoenix Assurance Co. (07 Fed. Rep. 18), 472. Luddington Novelty Co. v. Leonard (119 Fed. Rep. 937. Lndington Novelty Co. v. Leonard (127 Fed. Rep. 155", 157), 454. V. Leonard (62 C. C. A. 269), 457. Ixiv TAMLK i»F CASE!?. LudMar h'tfintiiis tire to pages. Ludlow N'lilvf Mf;;. Cu. V. rittsliurp | Major llrotlicr^ v. l-riuiklin ( i'.tdS, Mf;:. Co. ( If.C. 1".(1. i;.']). -Jf.. 25ti. 44. Luml.-y V. Cyc (2 Kl. \ HI I'lih. :Ui4. I.iimpkiii V. Fol»v (lilM Kid. Ivcp. 3721, 4»i'.t. l.uU'n V. Cump (Jil l".d. H.p. 424 i . 488. Lux V. Ila^K'" ("'•' *''il- 2r.r>-2(>n), 208. Luytics V. Ilolhndcr (27 lilati-lif. 413), 38;"), 31»2. 4L'i. V. HolU'iidrr (1). 21 F.d. K.p. 281 1. 37!l, 42!>, r)47. V. Holh'iidiT (2 1, 30 bVd. Ri-p. C32), 10.-), 393, 047. Lyman v. Burns (47 OIL V.a/.. OGO i , 127. I..yncli V. .lohn Single PaptT Co. (101 X. V. Supp. 824), 63. Lysney v. Selby (2 Ld. Kaym. 1118), 251. M Macl)eth-Evan8 Glass Co. v. General Electric Co. (231 Fed. Rep. 1S3). 3.-)S. V. Sclinelltacii (23!t l>a. 7(11. 2r)7, 261, 267. Macdonald v. Hidiardsoii (1 Ciir. 81). 222. Macinalian Pliannacal Co. v. Denver Chemical Mf;;. Co. (113 Fed. Rep. 468), 26, 72. Madanif Irene v. Schweinhury (C. D., lit 12, p. 114), ;-)73. Magee Furnace Co. v. LcHanoii ( 127 Mas-s. ll.l). 3 1."). Magic Curler Co. v. Torter ( 12H (). G. 2088), r,n. Ma^rnoiia Metal Co.'h Trudeinarks (66 L. J. Ch. N. S. 312). 106. . Mahler v. S^lnche (223 Ills. 136), 471. 1 K. R. 7121. !>. Mandcville v. Ilarnum (42 N. .J. Kq. ISa), 22.'-). .Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood ( lOS I'. S. 2181. 2n. 76, 77. HI, 1.32, 16.-), 214. 27!>. V. Wood (F«'d. Cam- No. J)026), 20, .'i8, 34.-). -Manitowoe Mailing Co. v. .Miiwauktv Maitin;; Co. ( 11<» Wis. r)43), 4!t. .■)1. 27!>. 311. -Manitowoc Mfg. Co. v. Dickerman (-)7 OfT. Gaz. 17211. 60. 380, .■.44. .-.4.-.. .Manitowoc Pea-Packing Co. v. Wil- liam Numsen tS: Sons (03 F^ed. Kep. I!t6). 168. Manufacturing Co. v. Trainer (101 U. S. .'Jl-64), 302. Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. Na- tional Elcc. Signaling Co. (206 Fed. Rep. 2!t-)), 431. Marcovitdi v. Rrami.Ie. Wilkins & Co. (Cox, Manual, No. oO.t), 474. Marcus v AlcFariand (110 Md. 260), 233. Marcus Ward & Co. v. Ward (40 N. Y. State Rep. 702), 23!l. V. Ward (1;-) N. Y. Supp. 013), 174. .Margarete StcilT v. Hing (124 C. C. A. .^O), 201. Margarete SteifT. Inc. v. Ring, 1). C., (21.-. Fed. K.p. 2041, 201, 371. Market Co. v. llciVinaii ( 101 C. S. 112). 303. Marks v. .latfa (26 N. V. Supp. 008), 271. Marlin I'irc .Anns Co. v. .^^liields (171 N. V. 3S4 ). .-.6. Marsh V. Hillings (7 Gushing, 322, 332), 310, 3.').-., 422. V. Warnn ( 14 Hlatclif. 263), .')14. Mar-Mcl TAULK OF CASES. Ixv RrfcrvnrcH MarHli, ct al., v. Wuricn, ct al. (14 O. G. «7H), r)lfi. Marshall v. Hawkins (4 N. V.. \.. K. Sup. Ct. 59), 301. V. Pinkliam (.-)2 Wis. Tu'l) , 100, 214, 41H. V. Ross (L. R. 8 Eq. C.ll), 80, XW. Mareliall Enj,'ine Co. v. Now Mar- shall En<,nne Co. (8!) N. E. Rep. 548), 106. V. New Marshall Engine Co. (203 Mass. 410, 42-2), 232. Martell v. St. Francis Motel Co. (51 Wash. 375), 183. Martha Wa.shinpton Creamery But- tered Flour Co. V. Martien (44 Fed. Rep. 473), 5!), 440. Martin v. Bowker (103 Mass. 401), 604. V. Martin & Bowne Co. (27 App. D. C. 59 ) , 565. V. Murphy (129 Tnd. 464). 22."), 246, 247, 248. V. Wright (6 Sim. 207), 53. Marvel v. Jonah (81 N. J. Eq. 369), 248. Marvel Co. v. Pearl (133 Fed. Rep. 160, 162), 113. V. Pearl (00 C. C. A. 220), 292. V. Tullar Co. (125 Fed. Rep. 829), 292. Mass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd., v. Feigenspan (96 Fed. Rep. 200), 540, Massam v. Cattle Food Co. (L. R. 14 Cii. D. 748), 27. Matsell V. Flanagan (2 Abb. Pr. X. S. 459 ) , 200, 202. Matter of ITondayer (MO N. Y. 37), 220. Matthews v. Murcliisoii ( 17 Fed. Rep. 700-700), 20S. Maxwell v. Hogg (L. R. 2, Ch. 307), 70, 430. iiri' to pagm. Ma,\we]l Stfcl \'aiill (.'o. v. National Casket Co. (205 F.-d. Rep. 515), 428, 435. Mayer v. Flanagan (12 T«'X. Civ. App. 405), 29. Maytr Fertilizer & Junk Co. v. Vir- ginia-Carolina Chem. Co. (35 App. D. C. 425), 71, 222. McAndrew v. Bass<'tt (4 DeG. J. & S. 380-386), 26, 04. 114, 490, 492. MeAulifTe v. Vaughan ( 135 Ga. 8.52), 248. McCall v. Theal (28 Grant, Up. Can., Ch. 48), 99. v. Wright (198 N. Y. 143), 257. McCann v. Anthony (21 Mo. App, 83), 280, 306, 337, 399, 444. McCardel v. Peck (28 How. Pr. 120), 209, 355. McCaw, Stevenson & Orr, Ltd. v. Lee Bros. (23 R. P. C. 1), 333. v. Nickols (21 R. P. C. 15), 330. McCord v. Williams (96 Pa. St. 78), 242. McCurry- v. Gibson (108 Ala. 451), 248. McElwee v. Blackwell (15 Off. Gaz. 658), 502, .505, 512. McGowan v. McGowan (22 Ohio St. 370), 230, 243, 244. McGraw Tire & Rubber Co. v. Grif- fith (198 Fed. Rep. 566), 123. McGrew Coal Co. v. Menefee ( 162 Mo. App. 209), 43. V. Menefee (144 S. W. Rep. 869 1 , 102. Mcllhenny v. New Iberia Co. (30 App. D. C. 337), 577. V. New Iberia Extract of Tabasco Pepi>er Co. (34 App. D. C. 430), 112. McLean v. Fleming (90 U. S. 245). 4, 9, 29, 31, 42, 50, 132, 177, 182. 184, 200, 293, 294, 303, 304. 340. 424. 428, 442, 448, 451, 490, 494, 872. Lwi TAHLK OF CASUS. Mel-Mil Hffrnnris nrr to /niijis. Mil-oiiiian V. Hailroad Co. ('12 Fc»l. Htp. 11»S), 4S4. MoMiirtrii- v. (Juili-r ( 1S3 Muos. 4:)n, 4:.4), 23!». MoVi'Ufili V. VHliMiciii (ijiar l'a«'- tory (:^2 Oir. C.i/.. llJli. JT. McVey v. Urcnd.l (lU Pa. St. 23.->), C2. MoiUciiH- Co. V. Wood ( l(tS I'. S. 2 IS. 222). 132. Mcillar ), lilt. Mi'iklo V. Williamson (27 K. 1*. C. 7 7.-) I. :r.ni. Mi'lHclrriiio v. Melacliriiio Cijian-tti' Co. (4 R. P. C. 2.1-.-) 1. 172. 17!l. 215, 444. Mi'llor.sh V. K.in (28 B»-av. 4.-):J), 2:M\ 24!I. Mfllin V. Whlti', L. H. ( 18itr), A. C. 1541, 5-J- Mollwood Dist. Co. v. llari)er ( 107 Yvd. Hep. 38!)), 125. 328. Meni4)Md Kt'doy InstitiUi' v. T.o>- )i.- E. K("j;livie (150 KihI. Hep. 038), 03. V. .Syndieate l»ub. Co. (237 C. S. 018. 022). ill. 563. .M.rry v. IIooihs (111 X. Y. *20), 28. Merryweather v. Moore {L. H., 1802, p. 2), 257, 258. Messcr v. Tilie Kadettes (108 Mass. 140). 180. Messerole v. Tyidierjx (•'0 How I'r. 14), 170. V. Tynbern (4 ALL. Pr. N. S. 410). 10. no. Metcalf V. Hanover Star Mill Co. (204 Ked. Hep. 211), ?2. Metroi)olitau Hank v. St. Louis Uia- patch Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 722- 724), 210, -226. V. St. Louis Dispatch Co. (140 r. S. 430-440). 210, 221, 226. Metzler V. Wood (L. R. 8 Cli. 1>. 000). 445. Meyer v. l.aLau (51 La. Ann. 1720 i. 242. V. Hull Medicine Co. (7 C. C. A. 558). 1.52. V. Hull Metliclne Co. i Oti OlT. (la/. 107). 177. Meyer.s v. Kalania/no Hu^;;y Co. (54 Mieli. 215). ISl. V. Merillion (118 l"al. 3.V2 ) , 248. Miclii<.Min (\)ndenspd Milk Co. v. Kennewejr Co f .0) App. 1). C. ■JOl I. 111. MilLank v. Milhank (l!M)(t. p. 1, Ch. 385), 435. Mill Co. V. Alcorn ( l.'.O V. S. 460). 103. Milll.ni- Co. V. I ay lor. ChI. (37 I'ae. i;.(i. 235), 80. Mil-Mor TAliLK OF CASES. lx\ii References Miller v. Bwk, Towa (72 N. W. Rop. 553 ) , 250. V. Kt'ck-r (it Pa. Co. Ct. K. 274), 225. Miller Tohiicco Mnmifacturiup Co. v. Coiiimcrcc (45 N. J. IjIIW, 1H, 24), 2!)«. Mills V. HfssIfT (87 Kan. .-)4!»), 225. Millinfrton v. Fox CJ Mylnc & Cr. 3SS), 203, 310, 340, 4!)1, 4!»3. Milwaukee R. R. Co. v. Arms (!>1 U. S. 487,4!)2), 421. Mines v. Scribner (147 Fed. Rep. 027 ) , 376. ^Miskell V. Prokop (58 Nebr. 628), 320. Mississipj)i & Mo. R. R. Co. v. Ward (2 Black, 485), 303. Mississippi Wire Glass Co. v. Con- tinuous Glass Press Co. (81 Atl. Rep. 374), 113. Missouri Pacific Railway v. Humes (115 U. S. 512, 521), 421. Mitciiell V. Henry (L. R. 15 Cli. D. 181), 468. V. Read (84 N. Y. 556), 240. M. J. Breitenbach Co. v. Spann;en- berg (131 Fed. Rep. 160), 127, 145, 320. Modox Co. V. !Moxie Xcrve Food Co. (162 Fed. Rep. 640, 651), 477. Moebius v. Louis De Jonge & Co. (215 Fed. Rep. 443), 334. Moet V. Clybonn ( Seb. 533 ) . 340. V. Couston (33 Beav. 578), 310, 401, 402. V. Pickering (L. R. 8 Ch. D. 372), 340, 342, 405, 403. V. Pickering ( L. R. 6 Ch. 1). 770), 404, 405. Monarch v. Roscnfeld ( 10 Ky. Law Rep. 14), 187. Monarch Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co. (165 Fed. Rep. 774), 375, 376. are to pages. Monopol Tobacco Works v. (Jenisor (06 N. Y. Supp. 155), 407. Monro v. Smith (13 X. Y. ,Supp. 708), 301. Monroe Cattle Co. v. Beckir (147 U. S. 47), 53(1. Monson v. Boelim ( L. R. 2«i Ch. 1). 308, 407, 408), 70, 211. Montague & Co. v. I><^wry (103 V. S. 38 ) , 375. Montgomerie v. Donuld (Ct. S Blatchf. .')4S). 12!>. .^)n8. .-.40. V. .'Salmon (2 Man. A C :JS.-)), 2i):5. Morse v. Hutt-liins (102 Ma->s. 430), 2.-)l. Morse v. Worr.-ll (10 Pliihi. IfiS). 128, 444. Morse Machine Co. v. Morse ( 10:i Mass. 73-7.')), 2.13. Morton V. Morton (82 Pac. \U']^. f.tU), 126. V. Morton ( 14S Calif. 142), 17S. Mossier V. .Jacobs (6.1 111. App. .171), 120, 331. Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Eclair Film Co. (208 Fed. Kej). 416), 43.1. Motley V. Downman (3 My. & Cr. 1), 203. 340. 401. Mouson & Co. V. Boclim (L. R. 20 Ch, D. .308), 217. Moxie Co. V. Daoust (200 F.d. Pvcp. 434). .360. V. Daoust (124 C. C. A. 434). 34.1. Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbacli (32 Fed. Rep. 20.1-210), .10, 2!>0, 320, 448. V. Beach (33 Fed. Rep. 248). 208, 320, 453, 473, 488. V. Beach (3.1 Fed. R.p. 40.1. 406), 2.1;1. V. Holland (141 F.d. Il.p. 202, 20.1), 4.13. V. Motlox Co. ( 1.12 Ke^. Co. v. Duryca (41 V. V. A. 244), nr>. V, Kostcr {146 Fed. Kt-p. 2.-)!)), 4r)2. V. HiTtz (177 Fed. Kcp. 007), V.W, 312. V. (VConnclI (150 Fed. Kcp. 1001), 51, 131. Natural Food Co. v. Williams (30 App. D. C. 348), 111, 507, 570. Noil8on V. Betta (L. R. 5 II. L. R. 1), 422. Nelson v. Brassington (04 Wash. 180), 247. V. J. II. Winchell & Co. (203 Mass. 75), 9, 60, 450, 462. Neostyle Mfg. Co. v. EUam's Dupli- cator Co. (21 R. P. C. 185), 315. Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach (32 Fed. Rep. 205), 150. Nesne v. Sundet (101 N. W. Rep. 490), 179. Neva Stearine Co. v. Mowling (9 Vict. L. R. 98), 214. Newark Coal Co. v. Spangler (54 N. J. Eq. 354), 174. Newbro v. Undeland (69 Neb. 821), 445. Newby v. Railroad Co. (Fed. Case No. 10144), 184. Newcomer & Lewis v. Scrivcn Co. (168 Fed. Rop. 021, 624), 88, 282. New England Confectionery Co. v. National Wafer Co. (224 Fed. Rep. 344), 126. V. National Wafer Co. (140 C. C. A. 30), 334. New Home Sewing ^lachine Co. v. Bloomingdale (59 Fed. Rep. 284), 122, 327. are to paycs. N«'w Ilieria Extract of Tabasco Pep- per Co. v. E. Mel Ibcnriy'H Son (01 So. Rep. 131), 112. N'ewman v. Alvord (49 Harb. 588), 39, 95, 97, 164, 167. V. Alvord (51 N. Y. 189, 193), 7, 21. v. Pinto (4 R. P. C. 508), 79, 444, 492. v. Wolfson (<)0 C;a. 704), 248. New Orleans v. Steamship Co. (20 Wall. 387-392), 474. Newport Sand Bank Co. v. Monareli Sand Mining Co. (144 Ky. 7), 14. New York k Balto. Co. v. New York Co. (9 Fed. Rep. 578, 579), 486. New York &. New Jersey Lubricant Co. V. Young (77 N. J. E;;livie v. C. & C. Merriam Co. (140 F.d. Rep. 8.-)8), 03. oCrady v. MeDonald (72 N. .7. Kq. 8()-)). 3.').-|. V. McOonald ((1(1 Atl. Rep. 17')), 110. Ohio & Miss. Ry. Co. v. Press Pub. Co. (4S Fed. Hep. 206). .■)4. Ohio Bakin^r Co. v. National Bis- cuit Co. (02 C. C. A. 110), 123. Old Corner Book Store v. Upham (104 .Mass. 101, 10.-)), 2.32. Oldham v. .lames (13 Ir. Ch. .303), 418. (^Id Lexin^iton Chil> Dis. Co. v. Ken- tueky Distilleries & Warehouse ( ... (234 F.d. Hep. 4()4), :)74. Olin V. Bat.- (OS 111. .-)3 ) , 171. Oliphant v. Suh-m Flourin;: Mills (.') Sawyer 128), 82. Oliv.r niill.'d Plow Works v. Oliver y\ln. Co. (40 App. D. C. 12.-)), .'•)rt3, 508. oil I'liu TMilA. OK CASKS. Ixxi (•liver TviHwritcr Co. v. AnnTicnii \Vritin. 177). :i2i. ( !inc;;a Oil Co. v. W't'schlcr (71 N. V. Suiip. itS.n. l-2(i. :i()!). ( Miio .Mfj;. Co. V. .MyHtii- Ruliijcr Co. (22.') Fed. lU-p. !»2), .{20. Oneida Conimvmity v. Oneida (Jame Trap Co. (154 N. Y. S. :5!)1), nfif). ()nonda i , 409. V. Sm-lliii- (17 15. I'. C. 028 1 , 2fl7. V. Snellin); < 17 H. P. C. 4S. .Vi), 2!)7. V. Ward (17 K. W C. 58), 208. P. C". Weist Co. V. Weeks (177 Tu. 412), 57, 387. V.-ahody v. Norfolk (08 Mass. 452), 253. 254, 250, 258. PearllKTfj V. Rost'nstom- (70 N. •!. Eq. 0381, 52. IVck V. Trilmno Co. (214 V. S. 185, 190), 277. Peerless T^ublier Mf;r. Co. v. Nichol (187 Fed. Kep. 238), 458. Peerless Pattern Co. v. Pictorial Review Co. (132 N. Y. S. 37), 200. Peltz V. Eicliele (02 Mo. 171-180). 240. PenlxTtliy Injector Co. v. Lee (120 Mich. 174), 175. Pence V. Lanpdon (00 V. S. 578- 581), 200. P.nnell V. Lothrop (101 Muss. 357), 430. T'ennsylvania Co. v. nailroiul (d. (IIH U. S. 200), 414. Pennsylvania RuMier Co. Dread- nau^jht Tire & Hiil.l.er Co. (225 Fed. Hej). 138), 113. Pennsylvania Suit Mf;,'. Co. v. Mey- ers (70 iM-d. Hep. 87), 128. Re f lit mis (trc to pages. People V. Bartlioif (00 Ilun, 020), 750. V. Cannon (130 N. Y. 32), 755, 750. V. Elfenliein (20 N. Y. Snpp. 304 ) . 750. V. Fisher (5(1 Hun, 552), f). V. Fisher (57 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 5.52). 02, 500. V. Gluckman (70 N. Y. Supp. 173), 755. V. llilfnuin (70 N. Y. Supp. 021), 755. V. Ilofran (20 N. Y. St. 110), 755. V. Krivitzky (108 N. Y. 182), 755. V. Luhrs (80 N. K. Uep. 171), 750. V. Molins (10 N. Y. Supp. 130), 30, 545. V. Morjzan (00 .\]^\>. Div. 110), 220. V. Roberts (1.50 N. Y. 70). 218, 220, 227. People ex rel. Columl.ia Chem. Co. V. O'Brien (01 N. Y. Supp. 649), 189. People ex rel. Power v. Rose (219 111. 40), 180. Pepper v. Lahrot (8 Fed. Rep. 29), 28. 20. 213, 337. Perceval v. Phipps (22 Ves. &. B. 19), 200. Perfect Safety Paper Co. v. Ceor^e La Monte &. Son (122 O. (J. 809), 509. Perham v. Richman (158 Fed. Rep. 540), 190. Perkins v. .\poIl<> Bros. (107 I'Vd. Rep. 470), 120. V. lleert (158 N. Y. 300), 755. Perks v. Hill I W. N.. 1881. p. Ill), 444. Pennsylvania Su^rar R<-f. (<>. > American Su^ar l{ei. ( .. (l",il | Perllier;; v. Sniitli (70 N. J. Eq Fed. Rep. 254), 370. 038), 52, 79. Per-Pla TAULE OF CASES. Ixxiii I'cfcrcncrs Porry v. Tnicfit (0 r?.iiv. 0(1), 10, 42, 4:{, 7H, 125. P. E. iSharpless Co. v. LuwrcMici- (130 C. C. A. 59), 459, 4«(). Potcr Schocnhoffii Brew. Co. v. MaltiiH- Co. (134 O. (i. 1804), 5;")!). V. Maltinr Co. (:(0 App. I). ( '. 340), 102. Pt'torsoii V. lluinpliicy (4 Ahl). I'r. 394), 29, 243. Petrol ia Mfg. Co. v. Bell & Bogart Soap Co. (97 Fed. Rep. 781), 3(5, 118. Pettes V. American Watchman's Clock Co. (85 N. Y. Supp. 900), 755. Peyton v. Desmond ((53 C. C. A. 654), 414. Pfeiffer v. Wilde (102 Fed. Rep. 658), 465. V. Wilde (46 C. C. A. 415), 46.5. Phalon V. Wright (5 Phila. 464 1 , 79, 102, 444. Phelan v. Colleiider ( 13 N. Y. Sup Ct. 244), 29. Philadelphia Extracting Co. v. Keystone E.xtracting Co. (176 Fed. Rep. 830), 257, 267. Philadelpliia Nov. Co. v. Blakesley Nov. Co. (37 Fed. Rep. 365), 453. Pliiladelphia Nov. Mfg. Co. v. Blakes- ley Novelty Co. (40 Fed. Rep. 588), 140, 2«6. V. Rouss (40 Fed. Rep. 585, 5S7), 141. Philadelphia R. R. Co. v. Quigh-y (62 U. S., 21 Howard, 213), 421. Piaget V. Headley (68 N. Y. Supp. 351), 291. Pickett V. Green (120 Ind. 584), 225, 246. Pidding v. llow. (8 Sim. 477), 78, 122. are to pagcH, Pierce V. Frank (15 T.. J. Ch. 122), 490. V. Fuller (H .Mans. 22H), 222. V. CJuittard ( 6H Cal. (iS, 71), 47. 637. Tike Mfg. Co. v. Cleveland Stone Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 896), 122, 123, 124, 125, 131, 21(5, 324, 332. i'illslmry v. I'lllsliury (24 U. S. App. 395-404), 172. V. Pillsbury-Washimrn Mills Co. (12 C. C. A. 432), 444. V. Pillshury-Washlmrn Flour Mills Co. (64 Fed. Rep. 841- 847), 30, 81, 302, 343, 345. Pillsbury-Washhurn Co. v. Eagle (86 Fed. Rep. 608), 10, 161, 166, 167. rilislmry-Washhurn Flour Mills Co. V. Eagle (30 C. C. A. 386), 12, 162, 400. rilmore v. Hood (5 Bing. N. C. 97), 251. Pinto V. Badman (8 R. P. C. 181), 26, 144. V. Trott (8 P. R. 173), 326. Pioneer Suspender Co. v. Louis Op- penlieinier's Sons ( 128 O. G. 1293), 577. Piso Co. V. Voight (4 Ohio N. P. 347), 79, 417. Pittsburg Cruslied Steel Co. v. Dia- mond Steel Co. (85 Fed. Rep. 637, 638), 217, 3.32, 386, 387. Pittsburgh Water Heater Co. v. Beler Water Heater Co. (222 Fed. Rep. 950), 428, 434, 488. Plant Seed Co. v. Michel Plant & Seed Co. (23 Mo. App. 579), 179. Planten v. Canton Pharmacy Co. (33 App. D. C. 268), 99. v. Gedney (211 Fed. Rep. 281), 395. V. Gedney (140 CCA. 1), 395. Ixxiv TAMLK OK TASKS. rio Tri ItrfvrrtKt K K»-(l. K»p. r)J»7l. ;537. riiimlcy V. MasaacliusottH (1.');") l". S. 4(il. 4(t7, 475M, 7(5. r. M. (.'o. V. Ajax Rail Aiu'lu>r (<.. (216 Fed. Hrp. (534). 4S1. Pocono rini's Asscml)!)- v. Miller (77 Atl. Ri'p. 1()!>4). 10!». Tollard v. Photo-irapliic Vo. (40 (". D., Eng., 34.-)). 2.V.>. Pollen V. LeRoy (30 N. Y. r)4!)- .'iOl), 470. Poineroy Ink Co. v. PonnToy (77 *. J. Kq. 203). 2ri7, 26.1, 267. P..!isardin v. Poto (33 Bi-av. 642), 404. 40.-). Ponti'fact V. Isi-nbtTfU'r (106 Fed. Rep. 499), 121, 313. Pope V. Curl (2 Atk. 342). 260. PojH- A. M. Co. V. MeCrum-Howell Co. (112 C. C. A. .391), 320. Pope-Turnl>o v. Bedford (147 Mo. A|)p. 6!I2). 22.-). Popham V. Cole (66 N. Y. 69 i . 306. V. Wilcox (14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 206 ) , .... V. Wilcox (66 N. Y. 69), 109, 304, 467, ->07. l-(.rtcr V. Corman (O.l C.a. 11), 221, 231. Tortuondo v. ;Monn« (2S Fed. Rop. Kii. 301, 4r)2. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Netter (102 Fed. Rep. 691), .546. Postum Cereal Co. v. American Health Food Co. ( 109 Fed. Rep. K9H|, 10, 333. V. American Health Food Co. (56 C. C. A. 360), 2«4, 2!)4. Potter V. AhrenB (110 Cal. 681), 24fl. V. CommiPHionerH of lnlaii> pngin J'rincc Mfj,'. Co. v. I'riiicc'H Mctiillic Paint Co. (2), l.tf) N. V. 24), l^^, 77, Kit*. V. Prince's Motallic T*aiiitCo. (IT) N. Y. Supp. 24!H, 37. V. Prince's :M('tallic Paint Co. (."{fl N. Y. S. R. 488), 28. Prohasco v. Bouyon ( 1 Mo. App. 241), 241. Proctor V. McBridf (Ft-d. Case No. 11441), 32!). Proctor & Collier Co. v. Mali in (93 Fed. Rep. 87."), 87G), 3(i3. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Globe Re- fining Co. (92 Fed. Rep. 3:)7 3G2), 320, 333, 343. V. Globe Refinino; Co. (34 C. C. A. 405), 286, 337. Provident Chemical Works v. Can- ada Chemical Mfjr. Co. (2 Ont. Law Rep. 182), 100. Prudential Assurance Co. v. Knott (L. R. 10 Ch. D. 142), 53. Publishing Co. v. Dobinson (82 Fed. Rep. 50 ) , 202. V. Dobinson (72 Fed. Rep. 603), 189. Puritan Cordage; Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works (232 Fed. Rep. 138), 465. Putnam Nail Co. v. Ausable Horse- nail Co. (53 Fed. Rep. 390), 52. V. Bennett (43 Fed. Rep. 800), 294, 441, 538. V. Dulaney (140 Pa. 205), 139. R Quaker City Flour Mills Co. v. Quaker Oats Co. (43 App. D. C. 260), 109. IJadain v. Capitai .Microlje DcHtroy- er Co. (81 Texas, 122), 468. V. Destroyer Co. (81 T'.» N. V. Sujip. SSO), Til. 33r>. Kawwm v. Pratt (<.U In.l. i» ) , 24!), 251. Kaymond v. Royal Bakin^j Powdi-r Co. (S.') F.(i. Urp. 2:n), 128. V. Royal Bakinjr rowdi-r Co. (70 Fod. Rep. 40.")). 40.-). Reach Co. v. Simmons Hdw. Co. (155 Mo. App. 412), 4r). Read v. Kicliardson (4") L. T. N. S- 54), 86, 322, 470. Reading Stove Works v. S. M. Howes Co. (201 Mass. 437/, 456. V. S. M. Howes Co. (87 N. E. Rep. 7.")1), 130. Reddaway v. Banham (L. R., ISDO, A. C. 100, 204, 205), 13, 40, 152, 153, 101, 194. Reddaway & Co. v. Bentham Hemp Spinning Co. (0 R. 1'. C. 503), 151, 301. Redgrave v. Kurd ( L. R. 20 C"h. 1). 1), 251. Reed v. West (47 Tex. 240), 200. Reeder v. Brodt, C. P., (4 Oliio N. P. 205), 114, 305. Reeves v. Denieke (12 Al.h. Pr. N. S. 92), 29, 230. Regent Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Haakt-r (75 Nebr. 426), 446. Regina v. Closa (D. & B. 460), 410. V. Dundas (6 Cox, 380), 410. V. Gray (Sev. 183). 410. V. Smith (1). & B. 5(i()), 410. V. Sutter (10 Cox, 577), 410. Regis V. J. A. Jaynes & Co. (185 Mass. 458), 294, 449. V. Jaynes & Co. (191 Mass. 245, 251, 252), 455. 450, 462. V. Jaynes (70 N". E. Rep. 480), 128. V. .Ia\ nes (77 N. K. Rep. 774), 100. arc tn ]>agra. I Registrar v. Du Cms, Ltd. (83- L. J. Ch. li, 170. Rchl>ein v. Weaver (133 Fed. Rep. 607), 384. Reinhart v. Spaulding (40 L. J. Cii. 57), 121. Rcpiil.lie of Pent v. Reeves (40 X. V. Sup. Ct. 310), 402. iJi'uter's Telegram Co. v. Byron (43 L. J. Ch. 001), 201. Revere Ruhl>er Co. v. Consolidated Hoof Pad Co. (139 Fed. Rep. 151. 154). 67. \Uy V. Laeouturier ( L. R., 1008, 2 Ch. 726), IIH. Ri-ynier & Bros. v. Hnyler's (100 Fed. Rep. 83), 125. l.'eynolds v. Bulloek (47 L. J. Cli 773), 227. !;. Gaustavino Co. v. Comerma (180 Fed. Rep. 920). 11, 122. V. C»)merma (184 F.-d. Rep. 540). lis, 120. 403. R. Heiniseh's Sons Co. v. Bokcr (80 Fed. Rep. 705). 40, l(i7, 170. Rhodes V. Sperry «S: Hutehinson Co. (85 N. E. Ri-p. 1097), 278. Rieard v. Caton College Co., Minn., (92 X. W. Rep. 9.58), 320. Rice V. Standard Oil Co. (134 Fed. Rep. 404 ) , 377. Rice & Co. V. Redlich Mfg. Co. (122 C. C. A. 442), 370. Rice-Stix Dry (Joods Co. v. Scriven Co. (165 Fed. Rep. 639), 89. Richards v. Butelur ( L. R., 1891,2 Ch. 522). 102. V. Butcher (02 E. T. 867), 390. V. Hunt ((>5 (;a. 342), 245. Ricliard.Hon & Boynton Co. v. Rich- ardson & Morgan Co. (8 N. Y. Supp. 53), 202. Richardson v. Peacock (33 X. J. Eq. 597), 242. Richmond Nervine Co. v. Richmond 159 U. S. 293, 302), 20, 879. Kic-Rog TABLE OF CASES. Ixxvii Rcfcrcnrrs (ii RichtiT T. Anclior Rt-mo'ly Co. (r>2 Fed. Hep. 4->ry, 4r.8), 2.'{, «!), 380, 387. V. Reynolds (8 C. C. A. 22(t), 387. V. Reynolds (.'>!» Fed. Kep. r)77), 23, 27, «)!>, 217, 3H(!, .■)37. Rillet V. Curlier ((il Harh. 4:!r> ) , 122, 147. Rivero v. Norris (Seton, 4th Kd., 236), 405. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Allen Bros. Tol)acco Co. (151 Fed. Rep. 819), 30, 129, 296, 450. Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (171 N. Y. 540), 268, 2(59, 272, 276. Roberts v. Sheldon (8 Biss. 398), 330, 404. V Sheldon (Fed. Case No. 11916) , 127. Robertson v. Berry (50 ;Md. 591 1, 196, 290. V. Quiddington (28 Beavan, 529) , 226. Robinson v. Finlay (L. R. 9 Ch. D. 487), 63, 215, 339. V. Storm (103 Tenn. 40), 177. Robison v. Texas Pine Land Assn. (Tex. Civ. App., 40 S. W. Rep. 843), 373. Rubber & Celluloid II. T. Co. v. F. W. DeVoe & C. T. Reynolds Co. (233 Fed. Rep. 150, 154), 110, 192, 330, 458. Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trim- ming Co. V. Rubber-Bound Brush Co. (81 N. J. Kq. 419), I'M, 330. laimford Chemical Works v. ^luth (35 Fed. Rep. 524), 98, 137. Rupp V. Over (3 Brewst. 133), 231, Rushmore v. Badger Brass Mfg. Co. (198 Fed. Rep. 379), 371. •r to jKiffrH. Rushmore v. Manhattan Screw Si Stamping Works ( 1(J3 Fed. Ueji. 939), 293, 369, 371. V. Manhattan Screw & Stamping Works (90 C. C. A. 299), 103. V. Saxon (158 Fed. Rep. 499, 509), 142, 152, 176, 178, 369. V. Saxon (154 Fed. Rep. 213), 292. Russell V. Lundeen (72 Oil. Gaz. 420), 259. Russia Cement Co. v. Frauenhar (66 C. C. A. 500), 317. Russia Cement Co. v. Katzenstein (109 Fed. Rep. 314), 124, 316. V. Lepage (147 Mass. 206), 29, 171, 177, 181, 227, 442. V. Frauenhar (126 Fed. Rep. 228), 317. Ryder v. Holt (128 U. S. 525), 385, 392, 415, 429, 547. Rock V. Purssell (84 L. T. Jo. 45), 436. Rock Springs Distillery v. Monarch (15 Ky. L. Rep. 866), 177. Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co. V. Utah Telephone Co. (31 Utah, 377), 340. V. Utah Independent Telephone Co. (88 Rac. Rep. 26), 114. Rodgers v. Xowill (6 Hare 325), 174, 415, 490. V. Nowill (5 C. B. 109), 293. V. Nowill (2), (Cox, Manual, Xo. 115), 474, 475. V. Philp (1 Oil. (la./.. 29), 418. V. Rodgers (31 L. T. X. S. 285), 311. V. Rogers (53 Conn, i:^' ), 172, 175, 177. V. Taintor (97 Mass. 291), 30, 32, 174. Rogers Co. v. Rogers Mfg. Co. (17 C. C. A. 576), 189. V. \Vm. Rogers .Mfg. Co. (70 Fed. Rep. 1017), 177. Ixxviii TAIILK OF CAShis. Rog-San Itrffrcncfs nit- to paifrs. \lo}ivrn Mffj. Cn. V, RiifjtTt* A Spurr Mf>:. lo. (11 K.'d. II.p. 4».')), ITT. IT;). 411. Kolt V. HulmiT (Sri.. (-.14 i. -JJT. l!(>no(ironi v. CroHH (S(> N, Y. Siipi*. 11121, 148. Hoot V. L. S. & M. S. Kv. Co. ( lO.". U. S. 1891. 42151. 4.".8. l\o|M'» V. Upton (12.") Mhhs. 2')8- 2(51). 24". Ixosi- V. LoftiM (4T L. .1. Ch. .")T(5), :no. :n3. .3:5". nnn. 4!)2. V. Hpiilcy (4T L. J. Ch. .'iTT), 313. V. Ilonly (Sfl.. .-..-.1), 337. lU»st'nl)urj; V. Fri'i-moiit Undfrtak- ing Co. (114 Pac. Rep. 8S(5), 121. V. Fremont Undortakinj^ Co. (03 Wash, r.2), 183. Rosenthal v. Blatt ( N. J. Ch.. 83 Atl. Ri-p. 387). 10(5. Ro8onz\vi'i<; v. Korhi-s (121 O. (!. 2G07), r).')3. RoHin;; v. Atkinson (27 Sol. .1. .^)34 ) , 120. Rossman v. (lanii.r (128 C. C. A. 73), 384, r)(14. V. GarniiT (211 F.d. Itij.. 401 i, 114. r)8(5. Rourkf V. Klk Dru;; Co. (T.". N. Y. App. Div. 14.-)), 373. Itow.ll V. Row.ll (122 Wis. 1. 17 1 , 221. Rowland v. Mitcli.dl (I.. !{.. 18'.»7. 1 Ch. 1). 71. 74 1. It. Rowh'v V. nou;{hton (2 Rrcwst. .303), 122. V. .1. F. RowK'y Co. ( Kil F< <1. It.'p. 04), 178. V. Rowley (11:5 C. C. A. 38(5). 4.-|». Royal Itakiii;; l'oW(hT Co. v. On tin i2(5 Fid. Rip. 203). 28(5. 200. Roynl Hakin;; I'owdir I'o. v. Royal ('.8 C C. A. 4JM»), 177. 17». V. Royal Chrmit-al Co. (Price & Stenart. 1 ). 903. Royal InH. Co. v. Midland Iiim. Co. (20 R. P. C. 728), 4(.J». Roystone v. Woodltnry Dermatolofj- ioal institute (122 N. Y. S. 444), 200. R«»y Watch -Chhi' Co. v. Camm-Koy Watch-Caso Co. (39 N. Y. Siipp. 079), 330. s Saccharin Corp v. Wild. 1903 (1 Ch. 410), 431. Safe-Cabinet Co. v. (^IoIm'- Wernicke Co. (3 Ohio App. 24), 293. Sa^e V. Taus/ky (Fed. Case No. 12214), 48.-.. Salin-rer v. Salin^-.r ( ti!) X. II. oSO), 2.-)0. Salomon v. llert/ (40 X. .1. Eij. 400), 254, 2r)r>, 20(5. Sam.son Cordage Work.s v. Puritan Corda-e .Mills (211 Fed. Rep. 003). 193. Sanuii'l V. Her;;ir (24, Harl.. 103), 418. Samuel Bros. & Co. v. Ilofitetter Co. (.-.r> C. C. A. Ill;, 313. Samuels v. Spit/.er ( 177 Mass. 220), .328. Sanche v. Malii.r (219 Ills. 349), 471. Sanders v. .laeol. (20 Mo. App. 90), 200. San Francisco Natl. Hank v. Dodpo (197 U. S. 70, 93). 221. Sanitaa Co. v. Condy (I P. R. 19.-.), :{:jo. Sanitas Xnt Fi.od I'u. v. C /k/j/in. Sohrnudir v. RtTonford A Co. I Srnrl.' \. ricrrtli Co. v. WanitT (.'jO (Hrownc, Trn«l«miirkH, (Ull », «17. (.'. C. A. :{21», asn. St'humaoluT & KttlinpT V. Srlnvfiiki- I S«'ar« & NichoI« Co. v. Uriikilcy ('M Ajip. I). V. r>30). IU2. Senrn, Itcxliuck fi, Co. v. Klliott \'ur- iii.sli Co. (232 Ftd. lU'p. .ISS, .■.!»(!). 334. Si'ojjor Hi'fri^riTator (it. v. Wliit*' Eiiamt'l Hffrijrorator Co. (17H F«'d. Ucp. .'■)(i7). S!», 112. S.>fl.v V. FiHli.r (11 Sim. 581), M. Si'igert V. Abhott (1) 01 Md. 276), 81. Scixo V. Prov.'zcndr (L. R. 1 Ch. D. 192). 1«0, :UI4. .321, 33.'>. Silchow V. Bakrr (03 N. Y. 59), 12!t. 214. V. ChalTee & Selchow Mfg. Co. ( 132 F.d. Rop. !)n6), 108, 147. Stltzor V. Powell (8 Phila. 290), 129. Sin Si'D Co. V. Hritt.-n ( L. K.. 1899, 1 Ch. 1). 092 ), 83. S. F. MyiTS Co. V. Tiittlo (188 Fed. K.p. .")32), 2.32. V. Tuttk' (183 Fvd. Rt-p. 235), 226. Sliacklo V. Rak.T (14 Ves. 468), 223. (2» (30 OIT. Caz. 457 1. 418. 429. .503. 546. V. WoKram (35 Fed. Kip. 2I<1). .592. ."-H'liumat'hcr v. Srliwi-nkc (1) (26 Fi-d. H.'p. 81.SI, 3S5, 3'.t2, 415, 429, 547. SchiiyliT V. Curtis ( 19 N. Y. Supp. 264). 269. V. Curtis (24 N. Y. Su|.p. .')()9- 511). 271. V. Curtis (42 N. K. K.p. 22-24 >. 272. V. Curtis (64 Hun. 594 i . 271. Schwarz v. .""Jupt-rior Court (111 Cal. 106), 475, 476. Schwfitzer v. Atkins (37 L. .1. Cli. 8471. 32."). Scott V. Mackintosli ( 1 \'. & H. .503 1 . 222. 242. V. Rowland (20 \V. R. 208), 29, 222. V. Standard Oil Co. (l()(i Ala. 475), 103, 313. Scriven v. North (67 C. C. A. 348), 51. V. North (134 F.-d. R.'p. 366), 193. Sliavrr v. Ilclh-r & Morz Co. (48 V. North (124 Fi-d. Rarchllt{ht flan Co. v. Pn-Ht-O-Lite Co. (131 C. C. A. 026), 314. V. Ililhr & Merz Co. (108 Fed. Ri'p. 821-824), 216. V. Shaver (54 Iowa. 208. 209), 5, 64. 177. 424. 442. >liaw V. I'illin;,' (175 Pa. St. 78-84), 51. 293. 423, 470. Sliaw .Stoekinj; Co. v. Mack (12 Fed. Rep. 7(t7), 6. 129, 330, 337, 3.39, 341. Sheldon V. ll(iu;rl,ton (5 RIatchf. 285, 201), 223. Shelh'y v. Sperry (121 Mo. .\j)p. 429), 45, 1.50. Sheppard v. Stuart (1.3 I'hil. 117), 69, 121, 143, 216. She-Ski TAULi: OF CASKS. Ixxxi Ucfrnnrcs S. HornBhcim Bros. & Co., Ltd. v. .1. II. Margrave & Son (SI OIF. (In/.. FMi), .'■)44. Sherwood v. Andrcw.s ( ."{ Am. Law R»'p. N. S. fiHH), 104. V. Andrews (r> Am. L. Reg. N. S. r)88). 2!), ;J0, 81, 214. V. Ilortoii, Cato 4 Co. (84 Off. (Jaz. 2018 1, (K!. ."JS."), .38R. Shipwriglit v. ChmcntB (10 \V. R. finn), 28, .30, 212, 228. Shook V. Rankin (0 Bias. 477, 480, 481), 477. S. Howes Co. V. Howes Crain Cleaner Co. (24 Misc. Rep. R.3), 4;').-). Shrimpton v. Lai<^lit (IS licav. 164), 30;-). 444. Sibley Soap Co. v. Lami)ert Phar- macal Co. (103 Off. Gaz. 2172), 388. Siegert v. Abbott (1) (61 Md. 270), 30, 447. V. Abbott (1) (01 Md. 28(5), 417. V. Abbott (2) (Co.\, Manual, 718), 147. V. Abbott (4) (2;-) X. Y. Supp. .'SnO), 417. V. Ab))ott (72 Hun, 243), iVJO. V. Killers (Sel). 432). 147, 404. V. Findlater (L. R. 7 Ch. D. 801 i , 98, 147, 2r)3, 404. V. Gandolfi (139 Fed. Rep. 917), 115. V. Gondolfi (149 Fed. Rep. 100), 98, llf). V. Lawrence (11 Vic. L. R. 47), 404, 443. Simmons Hardware Co. v. Waibel (1 So. Dak. 488), 260. Simmons Medicine Co. v. Simmons (81 Fed. Rep. 163), 2r)4, 2r)7, 258, 280. Simplex Automobile Co. v. Kahn- weiler (162 App. Div. 480), 367. nri; tn payrH. Simpson v. Wriglit (1| (If) < iff. Gaz. 248), r>ll. V. Wright (2) (l.'i Off. (Jaz. 293), 500, 511. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Meiit (163 C. S. 169, 204), 92. V. Bent 163 l". S. 205). HS, 137, 149, 151, 172. V. Bent (41 Fed. R.p. 214), 88. V. Brill (Cox, Manual, 672), 149. V. British Empire Mfg. Co. (20 R. P. C. 313. 318, 319), 348. V. Cimrlebois (10 Rap. Jud. Q. C. S. 167), 91. V. Hippie (109 Fed. Rep. l.VZl, 87. V. James Spence & Co. (10 R. I'. C. 297, 309), 347. V. June (41 Fed. Rep. 208), 88. V. June Mfg. Co. ( 103 U. S. 160, 186), 88, 90, 111, 137, 149, 151, 171, 178, 193, 216, 4.58. V. Kimball & Morton (Ct. Sess. Cas., 3d ser., XI, 267), 69. V. Larsen (8 Biss. 151), 88. V. Larsen (Fed. Case Xo. 12902), 172. V. Loog (18 Ch. D. 412), 294. V. Loog (3) (L. R. 18 Ch. D. 395-404), 398, 399. V. Loog (3) (8 App. Cas. 39), 335. V. Loog (3) (L. R. 8 App. Cas. 15), 149, 412, 415, 442. V. Riley (11 Fed. Rep. 706), 88. V. Stanage (6 Fed. Rep. 279), 88. V. Wilson (2 Ch. D. 434), 64, 65, 290. 306, 413. V. Wilson (3 App. Cas. 376-391), 293. Singleton v. Bolton (3 Doug. 2931, 33, 49, 293. S. Jarvis Adams Co. v. Knapp (58 C. C. A. I ) , 265. Skinner v. Oakcs (10 Mo. App. 45), 27, 39, 181. Ixxxii T.MM.K «»K C'ASliS. Slu-Sou Slack V Suddoth (102 Tonn. :i7M. ! Smith v. Webb (170 Ah». r.OO . . 228, 248. Slal.r V. Banwrll (.'.0 F.-d. Roj). i:i(>i. 472. V. M.rritt (7.-. N. Y. 2«;8). 47:.. V. Woodniir (48 Bar!.. 4:»S i . 7f>, i:{0. Sniitli A l)a^i^i Mf;.-. I «>. v. Smith (80 Vri\. it.p. 48«;i. :{:«!>. (K) Slazfnuir v. F.-ltham (« T.. V. C Smitli-Dixun ( ... v. St.'vonH (I r,:ui. 2!Mi. :i2:i. :t2:.. ^,,, ,i()». 4:.l. Sloep.T V. Bak.r (22 N. D. :^!^«' i . V. Sti'vi'iiH (.V.» Atl. rv.j). 401), (585). ShH-py Kyi' Milling' Co. v. C. F. Snidt-r v. McK.-lvcy (27 Out. App. IJlanki- Ti'a & Coffm- (.'o. (8r> Off. Gaz. 1005). f,(i. 124, 385. Small V. Sand.Ts (US Ind. lO.''.), 305. Smallcy v. Cwoiw ("'^ la. 241), 255. Smith V. Adams (0 Paifjo, 435- 443), 148. V. Carron Co. (13 P. U. 108). 331. V. David H. Brand & Co. (. 402), 1C7. Southern (or Southerner v. How (2 Pophani, llli. 10, 40, 57. Soc-Sta TAIUJ; (»K CASKS. Ixxxlii llvfirvnc, 201. Soc'l<''t('' .Anoiiynif v. Haxtcr ( 14 IMat.-lif 2(11). :{()H. V. Wostcrii Distilling' Co. (4() Fed. R«'p. 021). 4(52. V. Wt'stiTii Distillinf; Co. (43 Ffd. Hep. 41(5), 11(5, 147, 1^)0. V. Weflti-rn Di.stilliii',' ('<>. (42 Fed. Kcp. 00), 47.'). Soci^"*!^ Anonyme Boiu-dictini" v. Hygradf Wine Co. (173 Fed. Rep. 796), 437. Soci^te Anonyme de la Distillerie de la Benedictine v. Jlicalo- vitch, Fletcher & Co. (36 Alb. Law J. 3(54), 116, 503. SociC'tiT' de la Benedictine v. Micalo- vitch (3(5 All). L. .1. 3(54), .'30. Society des Iluiles D'Olive de Nice V. Rorke (31 X. Y. Sup]). .")!). 451. Society of Accountants v. Corpora- tion of Accountants (20 Scot. Sess. Caa., 4th ser. 7.50), 400. Spaldinjj & Bros. v. Gamage, Ltd. (32 R. P. C. 284), 46. Speddin-j V. Fitzpatriek (38 C. D., p. 413), 435. Sperry v. Percival Millin}^ Co. (81 Cal. 252), 286, 200, 326, 4(18, 637. Sperry & Huteliinson Co. v. Asso- ciated ^Merchants' Stamp Co. (208 Fed. Rep. 205). 365. V. Fenster (210 Fed. Rep. 755), 038. V. Pommer (10!) Y>.'<\. Rep. 300, 314). 364. Spice V. James (Seh. 46), 224. Spicf;el v. Zuckernian (175 Fed. Rep. 078), 68, 100. Spieker v. Lash (102 Cal. 38-45), 106, 181, 037. «r« to pngcs. Sjiier V. l,anil>diii (45 Ca. 310), 234. Spratt V. .I.IT.ry (10 B. & C. 240), 222. Sprifi;,' V. Fislier (222 Fi-d, R I.«'g. Int. 8:.>. 17_'. Star Co. V. Colvrr l'nl>. ll<>u-f i IJl F«i. Ri'p. 12!»l. 4.-.:J. V. Whwler Syndicate ( l."».") N. Y. S. 7S2). :>. Starey v. Chihvorth (Junpowdrr Co. {h. R. 24 Q. n. I). HO). 77. Itefcrcnni an- t<> /(5 S. W. Rep. J)4.")t. 70s. V. RerlinslK'iMKT ( t>2 Mo. .\pp. 16.")). Ql. V. Rick (167 Mo. 272). 7 IS. V. Rishop (31 S. \V. H.-p. !t, ill. f1. V. Risliop (12S Mo. 373), 03, 718. V. Royd. I).-l. (!».-) Atl. R*-p. 232). C.V2. V. Dinni.sse ( l()!t Mo. 434), 7 IS. V. (Jibbs '.")6 Mo. 133), 22, .'.7. OS, 718. V. \\tL\yn (0 Ind. App. 107), 02, 673. V. Hand Rrcwinp Co. (32 R. I. m), 7no. V. Mason (38 Par. Rep. 1.30). .">."). V. McCratli (!I3 Mo. 3.17), 184. V. Mont^oni.iy ( UtO I'ac R«'I'. 771). 821. V. Nicftmann (101 Mo. A|tp. .')07 ) , 718. V. Mimidt (48 Atl. R.p. .'.88). 736. V. St. Clair (137 .Mo. App. 183), 718. V. Tetu (08 Minn. 3.-.1), SO. V. Thierauf (167 Mo. 420). 7 IS. V. Wri^rlit ( I.-.O Ind. .304 1, 073. Statf. ex ril., Spenrerian Ren Co. v. KiN.-y ( 10.-. .\pp. Div. 132 1. Oti, (105 Ga. 821, 1800), 3.50, 361. Steintbal v. Samson (Seb, .546), 143. .'■'teinway v. Ilrnsliaw (5 V. R. 77), 331. Sti'pliano V. Satniatopoulds ( l!'!t Fed. Rep. 451), 128. *^f«plifii.s V. DeConto (4 .\bb. Rr. X. S. 47). 124. 202. V. DeConto (7 Robertson, 343), 200. V. Reel (16 L. T. X. S. 145), 331. Sterlin05. Stenart v. Cladntone (L. R. 10 Cli. I). 646), 227. Sl.-venH A Co. v. StiloH (20 R. I. 300), 257, 300. Ste-Tae TAISI-K OK (:ASE8. Ixxxv I'rfrrcnccH lire tn pa yes. SU'vcM.-- Limn Works v. William & .IdIiii Don \ Co. ( 121 1'7. V. Hudson (222 Fel. Hep. .■>S4 ) . 3r)7, 3(»!». V. Smithson (1 Hilt. 11!»), 83, 85. Steward v. Kinsti-in ((14 OIT. Caz. ir)33), 400. Stior V. MnrhuF}? Hros. (C. I).. r.tl3. p. 234 ) . r)72. Stirling Silk Mfj,'. Co. v. Sterling Silk Co. (46 Atl. Rep. 1!)!)), 87. St. Louis Piano Mfg. Co. v. Morkrl (1 Mo. App. 30,-,), 6.",, .3.11. St. Louis Stanipinji; Co. v. Piper (.'}:{ N. Y. Supp. 443), 104. }St. Munpo Co. V. Viper Co. (27 H. P. C. 420), 333, 460. Stokes V. Allen (0 N. Y. Supp. 846), 130. V. Landraff (17 Barb. 608). 101, 103. 106, 107. 133. Stokes Bros. Mfp. Co. v. Heller (.lO Fed. Rep. 207 ) . 25.5, 263. Stone V. Carlan (Cox, Case No. 104), 355, V. Goss (65 X. J. Eq. 756), 257. Ston<'braker v. Stonehraker (33 Md. 252), 177. Stoupliton V. Woodard (30 Fed. Rep. 002), 119. Strasser v. Moonelis (108 X. Y. 611), 02, 500. Straus V. Xotasemo Hosierj- Co. (240 U. S. 170), 448. Sirausp V. Weil (101 Fed. Rep 527). 360. Street v. Bla.v, 1S31 (2 Barn. & Ad. 456), 4.34. Street & Smith v. Atlas Mf;,'. Co. (231 U. S. 348), 205, 466, 581. Streeter v. Rush (25 Cal. 67), 248. s. T. Taylor Co. v. Xast (154 X. Y Supp. 082), 124, 202. Stuart V. F. (i. Stewart Co. (01 Fed l{.p. 213), 178, 170, 1K2, .331 344. v. F. a. Stuart Co. (33 C. C. A 4S0), 177. Stuart & Co. v. ScottiKli Val di Travers Paving C^o. (Ct. Se»ji Cas., 4tli ser. 13, 1). 104. •^'luckcs V. National Candy Co. ( 158 Mo. App. 342), 267. Summit City Soap Works v. Stand- ard Soap Co. (37 App. D. C. 604), 125. Sui)reme Court of Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. V. Wolf Bros. & Co. (240 U. S. 641). 105. Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Improved Order K. of P. (113 Mich. 133). 100. Swain V. .Tohn.^on (151 X. C. 03), 365. Swift V. Dey (4 Robertson, 611), 306, 475. V. Peters (11 Id. 1110), 510. Swift & Co. V. Brenner (125 Fed. Rep. 826), 370. V. Groff (114 Fed. Rep. 605), 440. Sykes V. Sykes (3 B. & Cr. 541), 83, 203. 300, 413. Symington v. Footman (.56 L. T. X. S. 696), 104. Symonds v. Greene (28 Fed. Rep. 834), 121, 302, 303, 415, 453, 473, 488, 546. V. Jones (82 Me. 302), 29. Tabor v. Hoffmann (118 X. Y. 30), 257. Taendsticksfabriks Aktiebolaget Vul- can V. Myers (139 X. Y. 364 i, 131, 444, 449. V. Myers (11 N. Y. Sup. 663), 3 IS. Ixxxvj TAlll.i: UK CASUS. T-1 riio III ffriurca arr in paffrs. Talbot V. Wobhy < :i I*. I' f. •»7«>. I.\a, & I'. I!. Co. v. W il.lt r (Hi l\tl. iio. H.|.. !i:i:n. -js:.. 'lallcot V. MtKjre ((5 iliin, Jdt'ii. Jifi. : Tluu-kiTH.v v SnxKlmrr ( (1(» ('. ('. A. 402. :>fl'2 1 , 208. Tarrunt A t'n. v. llolT (Tl l<'tl. 1J- "'>!'». 251. Taussig V. 'iHiissi): ( 1 IS () C. 22.'>1 ) , .-)71. Taylor v. A.hUm (II M. \ \N . 43. V. H.-mis (4 His.s. 40ti). 21). 27. V. Hotliin ( l"<-«i. (MX' N... l.TSOi. :U. .")S. V. farpi-ntor (3t (11 rai;:t\ 2'.t2 i . TiS. 421 442. V. Carpi-liter (3) (2 Saiulf. Cli. 003). 17. 22. 30.->. 33S. V. CarpiMitt-r (1) (3 Story. 4.")8), 22. 127. 206. 443. S.V). V. Carp.-ntor (2) (2 Wood. & M. 1). 22. 140. 20(>. 200. 211, 33S. 41fi. 410. V. (Jilli.-s (.-lO N. Y. 331). 103. V. Howard (110 Ala. 46S). 240. V. Taylor (L. R. 2 Kq. 200). 177. 300, 344. Taylor Iron & Stool Co. v. Nichols (70 N. .1. Kq. r)41), 2r).), 2.")7. Taylor Provision Co, v. Oobel (180 Fi-d. Rep. 938), 73, 100. T. R. Dunn Co. v. Trix Mff,'. Co. (63 N. Y. Supp. 33), 470. Telephone Mfji. Co. v. Sumter Mf>:. Co. (63 S. C. 313). 160. TennoHBoe Coal Co. v. Kelly ( 163 Ala. 348). 36."). Terry Steam Turbiiie Co. v. R. F. Sturtevant Co. (204 Fed. Rep. 103), 434. Tetlow V. Savournin (1.") I'liila. 170). 2.')6. V. TappuM (H.-) Fid. Rep 774), 26. 64, 70, 72, 130, 213. V. S. 461), 384. V. Davids ( 16.") Fed. I!ep. 7!I2). .")64 'v. Davi.ls ( l!l() F64. Tlie Amiable Naney (16 l\ S.. 3 Wheat. .-)46. .VjS), 421. The Collins Co. v. Oliver Ames &. Con Corporation (18 Fi-d. Rep. .")6I 57' ), 40,-). I hedford Medicine Co. v. Curry (06 Ca. 8!l), 308. The Fair v. .lose Morales & Co, (82 111. A pp. 400), 26. Ihe Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887- 1804 (.')0 and .ll Viet., c. 2S), 20. Ilieodore Rectanus Co. v. I'nited Drufj Co. (226 Fed. Rep. 545). 100. 128. v United Dru^' Co. (141 C. C. A. 301). 4,10. The Peck Pros. & Co. v. Peck Bros. Co. (,")1 C. C. A. 251), 180. Thermofiene Co. v. Thermozine Co. (22.") Fed. Rep. 446), 112. Thomas (i. Carroll A Son Co. v. Mc- Tlvaine & Raldwin (171 Fi^l. IN p. 12."). 120). 73. Thomas C Plant Co. v. May Co. (44 C. C. A. ,")34). 10, 127. 105. V. May Co. ( 100 Fed. Rep. 72), 127. V. May Merc. Co. ( l.")3 Fed. Rej). 220), 127. 448. Thompson v. .\ndrus (73 Mich. .l.-)!). 222. V. Mackinnon (2 .Steph. Dig. 726), 28. Tho-Tut TAULE OF CASES. lxxx\ ii Ilcfcrcncra arc tn puyea. ThompHoii \. Montgomery (1891, App. Cas. 217), 102. V. Montgornery (41 Cli. D. 3.")4 ) , 194. V. Mont{,n)rii.Ty (fi R. P. C. 4041. V. Wiiiclicstci- cm; Mass. 214 1, 112. V W'iiiiH'liaf^o County (4S lowii, 1.-..-)), 222. Tliompson & Co. v. Rol>ertson (Ct. Scss. Cas., 4tli scT., XV, 880), G2. Tliomsen v. Union Castle Mail S. S. Co. (160 Fed. Ri'p. 2.')1). 370. Thonison v. W'inclH'stcr ( 1!) I'ick. 214), 41. Thorley's Cattle Food Co. v. Mas- sam (42 L. T. N. S. S.ll), 177. V. Massam ( L. R. 40 ].. .1. Cli. 713), r)3. Tliornbury v. l^cvill (1 Y. & C. Cli. .'i.")4), 224. Tliornton v. Crowley (47 X. V. Super. Ct. r)27). 301. Tliuni V. Andrews (53 Fed. Rep. S4, 85), 484. Thum Co, V. Tloczynski (114 :Miurance Co. ( 134 S. W. Rep. 877), 112. V. TruveU-rs' Ins. Co. (143 Ky. 216), 187. Trego V. Hunt ( 65 L. J. Ch. 1 ) , 230 240. Triii'dad Asphalt Co. v. Standard Paint Co. (103 Fed. Hep. 977 1 193. Trisdorfer & Co, v. Estate of Bas sett (60 MSS. D. Sept. 1896) 70. Tuck & Sons v. Priester (19 Q. B. U 629 t 260. Tucker Alfg. Co. v. Boyington (Fed Cas. Xo. 14229), 88. V. Boyington (9 Off. Gaz. 455) 112, 301. Tuerk Power Co. v. Tuerk (30 X. Y Supp 384), 177. Turner v. Evans (2 El. & El. 512), 242 V. Major (3 Giff. 442), 29. 222. Turton & Sons, Ltd., v. Turton (42 Ch. D. 128), 175. Tussaud V. Tussaud (38 \V. R. 440), 29, 175. 177. Tuttle V. Blow (176 Mo. 158, 173), 38. Ixxxviii T.MU.K OK CASES. 'J «»• liii /i*c/ii< ■»<•«« rwentscl.f Stoom Blofkcry Goor v. Kllinpr t-Jli W . K. TD), HM, 443, 444. rU-da V. Zinloit.i ( 2'2fi V. S. 452). 437. IMell-Pmlock Mfjr. Co. v. Id.-ll Works (32 App. I). C. 2S2). 12h. .".70. rilinnn v. la-viba ( 1!M)S, A. C. 443), Jt. ludrrwood Typewriter Co. v. A. B. Dick Co. (163 Off. (Jaz. 730), 3!I0. V. A. 11. Dick Co. (3(J Ajpp. D. C. 17r»i. ."iG7. rngles-lli>j,'j,M-ttc Mfg. Co. v. i-'anii- ers' Hog & Cattle Powder Co. (232 Fed. Rep. 116), D.-). I'nion Klectric Co. v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. (203 Fed. Rep. .-)3), 374. I'nion Pacific Coal Co. v. I'nited States ( 173 Fed. Rep. 737). \r^(]. I'nion Paper Collar Co. v. Metro- politan Collar Co., Ltd. (3 Daly, 171). 472. I'nion ."switch 4 Signal Co. v. Sperry ( 16!l Fed. Rep. !I26», 2r)7. liiitcd iAH-e Mfg. Co. V. llartheis Mfg. Co. (217 Fed. Reji. 17.')). 486. I'nited Lace i Hraid Mfg. Co. v. Bartli^ls Mfg. Co. (213 Fed. Rep. .■)3.> ) . 43."). V. Bartliels Mfg. Co. (221 Fe«), .".. 116, l!t3. 324. I'nited StaU-s v. Brann (3!l Fe02. V. National Lead Co. (75 Fed. Rep. d. Rep. 40), 410. V. Seattle Brew. Co. (135 Fed. Rep. .507), 410. V. Seymour (66 i Card Co. v. C. M. Clark I'ul). C«>. i'M) App. 1). C. 2()S), 'II. V. Clark Tnl.. Cc ( 12t; < ). (J. 2HH)). riT.i. United States Tobacco Co. v. Amer- iean ToI»iiee<> Co. ( Ifl!} Fed. Hep. 701), :?7 Sol. .F. 7."5.")), 40;"), 442. V. Klkan ( L. R. 12 Eq. 140), :{02. 403, 405, 443. 401. V. Forester ( L. R. 24 Ch. D. 2:{ll, 302. 40r., 438, 442, 443, 400. Upper Assam Tea Co. v. IIerl)ert (7 R. l\ C. 183), 323. Uri V. Hirsch (123 Fed. Rep. 568), 80. Vacuum Oil Co. v. Climax Refin- ing Co. (120 Fed. Pvcp. 254, 250), 103. V. Climax Refining Co. (5(> C. C. A. 00), 102. V. Eagle Oil Co. (122 Fed. Rei). 105), 340. Valentine v. Valentine (31 L. R. Ir. 488), 404. Van Beil v. Rrescott (82 X. Y. (i30). 110. Van Camp Packing Co. v. Cruik- shanks Bros. Co. (00 Fed. Rep. 814), 270, 290, 451. Vandcr Rergli & Co. v. Belmont Distilling Co. (00 OtV. (Ja/. 1624), 389. i;.|. 010), 276. \ an Dyke v. .Taekson (1 E. D. Smith, N. v., 410), 245. \'an Holioken v. Molins iV Kulten- liacli (112 Fed. Kep. 528), 115, 313, 468. \'an Horn v. Coogan (52 N. J. E<|. 380), 127, 152, .329. v. Coogan (.52 \. J. Eq. .588), 127. \'an limiteii v. TTooton CoT:oa & Chocolate Co. ( l.'U) Fed. Rep. «iOO. ()()3), 354. \'ai) Kaniiel Revolving Door Co. v. American Revolving Door Co. (135 C. C. A. 4.30), 08, 261. \an Raalt v. Schneck (1.50 Fed. Rep. 248), 426, 448, 458. v. Schneck (05 C. C. A. C72), 426. \'an Stan's Stratena Co. v. Van Stan (200 Pa. 564), 320. Van Zile v. Xorub Mfg. Co. (228 Fed. Rep. 820), 126, 334. N'assar College v. Loose-Wiles Bis- cuit Co. (107 Fed. Rep. 982). 278. \'erges v. Forshec (0 La. Ann. 204 I , 250. Viano v. Baccigalupo (183 Mass. 160), 312. \'ickery v. Welsh (10 Pick. .523- .527), 2.")3. Victor Safe & Lock Co. v. Deright (77 C. C. A. 437), 'iG. \'ictor Talking Machine Co. v. Armstrong ( 132 Fed. Rep. 7 11 i . 279, 282. \ irginia Raking Co. v. Southern Biscuit Works (68 S. E. Rep. 261), 119. xc TAIU I OK CASKS. VirWal h'tliriiKt s N'irjrinia Hot Spriiip* Co. v. IK'ni*- man 4 To. (138 K.d. K.|>. Hri.-i, S«2i. 207. \'it4.8o«>|n' Co. V. liiiti'*! Statt'H riiononrapli I o. (HU F.d. K.p. .101. .V2. l.U. Vopt V. P.-oplr (.".!» 111. .\pp. MA), 411. V. PtHiplo (.')7 111. App. «S4). OtW. Vol)r«r V. Fom- (71 N. Y. S. 2011). .320. \ On Hr.-nifn v. MiuMomiifs (200 N V -in. J.?i. WuiiliTliank v. Sclmiidt (4» I-ii. Anil. 2«4l. 2;}!i. 3:).-). Von FaluT v. FaluT (124 F.'.l. It. i« (•)0:n. 102. 17"), isr. \on KalMT-Castfll v. Falur ,71 C. C. A. .38:1), 17:"). 181. V. Fabor ( l.SO Foci. Rop. 2r)7 1 , 1(»2. V. Fal..T (2i. (70 C. C. A. .'illS . , ISl. Von Miinim v. Frash (r)0 Frd. Rep. 8;j0-8:{!t). 1()8. 280. 300. 407. V. Kirk (4^ K.d. Rep. r)8n), 2S(i. V. SU'innutz ( I'M Fi'd. Rt-p. 108), 207. V. Witti-man (2), (33 C. C. A. 404), 270. V. Witti-mann (8."» Fid. \lr\u 000). 270, 200, 200. \ On Tiiodorovicli v. Rfncficial AsHn. (l.-)4 Fi'd. Rip. 011», 277. Vo888), 2.')7. V. AmiTican Can Co. (72 N. .1. Kq. 387 I. 2."i7. 20."). V. Amrriran Can Co. (80 N. .F. lv|. 443 1, 207. If pitijrs. w \V. A. Caini'H & Co. v. E. Whyto (Jroo.ry. Fruit A \Vim> Co. (107 Mo. Ajip. .')07i, 120. V. Kalin ( 1.').'. K.'d. Ri-p. 0.30), 38, 217. V. Kni'cht & .Son (120 (1(T. Haz. 1103), 300. V. Li-8lii' (M N. V. Siipj). 421). 120, 320. V. Rock .Spring Dis. Co. (141 C. C. A. 287), 38, 110, 200, .'i04. V. Rock Springs His. Co. (17!» Fed. Rep. 544), 441. V. Rock Spriufr DistillinK Co. (220 Fed. Rip. r.31, .->37), 04, 4SS. V. Kork Spriii;.' Distilliii;: Co. (220 Fi-d. R.'p. 5.38 1, 2.'). V. Turner-Looker Co. ( 123 C. C. A. 70). 327. 447. Wapner v. Daly y^l Hun, 477), 71. WajrniT Typewriter Co. v. F. S. Webster Co. (144 Fed. Rep. 40.")). 40(i. Walker v. Alley (13 Crant Cp. Can. Ch. .300), 310. V. Mikohis (70 Fed. Rep. O.').")), 324. V. Reid (Fed. Case No. 17084), 111, 342. Wallace V. 1). Appli'ton k Co. (101 Fed. Rep. 884), 477. Wallach v. Wi{,'more (87 Fed. Rep. 400), .v.). 300, 417. WalliH V. Wailirt (4 Dr. 4r)8). 443. Walter v. Asliton (I.. R.. 1002, 2 Cli. 282), 348. Walt.r Hiik.r .. V. Slack ( l.U) I-Vd. i{.'i>. ."il 4, 510), 457, 401, 402. Walton V. Crowl.-y (3 lUutdi. 440 i , 68. V. Crowley ( Fed. CuHc N'l). 171.'i;!), 30, 305. Warrt'ii.v. Warn-ii Tliread Co. (134 Ma.ss. 247). 30. 386. \V» llman & Dwire Tob. Co. v. Ware Tol). Works (46 Fed. Rop. 28!)), 112. Wamsutta Mills v. Allen (12 Tliila. 535), 308, 332. VVandt v. Hearst's Clucajjo Ameri- can (12!) Wis. 41!)), 270. Ward V. Drat (Cox, Manual, 007), 53. V. Robinson (L. R. !) Cli. D. 487), ,32, 215. Warfield V. Booth (33 Md. 03). 225. Waring v. Cox (1 Camp. 309), 17. Warner v. Roolir ( Fed. Case Xo. 17189A), 410, 420, 852. V. Searlo & lleretli Co. ( l!)l V. S. 195), 380, 392, 429, 550. Warner Bros. Co. v. Wiener (218 Fed. Rep. 635), 13, 131. V. Wiener (134 C. vJ. A. 393), 332. V. Wiener (130 C. C. A. 424), 332. Warren Bros. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (145 Mich. 70), 52. Warren Featherhone Co. v. Ameri- can Featheroone Co. (72 C. C. A. 571), 89. Warwick Tyre Co. v. New Motor Co. (1910, 1 Cii. 248), 399. Wasldmrn v. Dosch (OS Wis. 430), 2:5 1 . V. National Wall Taper Co. (HI Fed. Re|). 17-20), 220, 220. WaHlil.iirn & Moen Mfg. Co. t. Free- man Wire (.'(). (41 F'ed. Rep. 410), 472. V. Haish (Fed. Case No. 17217), 87. Wasliington Medallion Pen Co. v. Ka.steri)rook (Fed. Case No. 17240a), 281. Waterman v. Shipman (1."'.0 N. Y. 301), !)2, 123. Waterman Co. v. Modern I'en Co. (235 U. S. 88, 94), 187. Watkins v. Landon (52 Minn. 389), 214, 2.-)3, 708. Watt V. O'llanlon (4 1'. \\. 1 ), 108, 130. Waukesha H. M. Springs Co. v. Hygeia S. D. Wat«T Co. ( 1 1 C. C. A. 277), 58. Waukesha Hygeia Mineral Springs Co. V. Hygeia Sparkling Dis- tilled Water Co. (03 Fe^. Wcc-Wlii Rrfcrrnrra arc to pagrs. Weed V. rct*rw»n (12 Al.h. Pr. N. S. 178), 20. 230. :U(». 41M). 492. WtvniT V. Hrnyton ( ir)2 MaHH. 101 \, 4. !•. «2. 424, 400. NNoiiiHtock, Lultin 4 Co. v. Murks (100 Cal. .V>0>. :\'1H, :{4«, r.37, Wrlch V. Knott (4 K. A .1. 747 i. :u:{. :»:i7. Wrhlon V. Dick ( L. K. lo Ch. D. 247). 206. Wclloomr V. Haiim ( l.l.". O. (J. S04 i . j V. Tliompson & Cappi-r (1 L. K. Cli. Div.. 1004. |t. 730, 742. 740, 7r)0, 7r)4), 105. \\«'llman & Owiri" Tobacco Co. v. Wari" Tobacco Works (4« Fed. iicp. 289), 280. WfUs V. Ceylon Perfume Co. (10.") Fed. Rep. 021), 335. Wells & Richardson Co. v. Sie<;el, Cooper & Co. (100 Fed. Rep. 77l, 117. Welsbach Lif^ht Co. v. Adam (107 Fed. Rep. 403), (54, 332, 3.-)0, 54'.. Welz V. HliodiuH (S7 Ind. li. 234. Wcnt/x-I V. Harliiii (180 Pa. .-)02). 232. Wertlieimir v. Racli. 81), 393. Whitney v. RolxTtnon (124 V. S. l!H)-li»4), 53'). Wliittakcr v. Ildwc (.'{ Iloavan, 383). 224. W liittcnKtrc Uros. & Co. v. Ilautha- way (132 O. O. 233), FtM, r)77. VVhittitT V. l)i.-tz ((it> C'al. 78), 10, 3i)«, G37. Whitwcll V. Continontal Tobacco Co. (12;") Fed. Rop. 454), 375. Wickers v. Weinwiirm (C. D., 1907, p. 219), 572. W'ightman v. Wij^htmaii (111 N. K. Kep. 881), 225. Wilcox & Gibba Sewinjr Macliine Co. V. Gibbons' Frame (21 Blatchf. 431), 279, 508. V. The Gibbens Frame (17 Fed. Rep. 623), 88. Wilkinson v. Greely ( Fed Case Xo. 17671), 470. V. Griflith (8 R. P. C. 370-374), 307, 321. William Ropers Mfg. Co. v. Rogers & Spiirr Mfg. Co. (11 Fed. Rep. 495), 185. Williams v. Adams (8 Biss. 4.52), 131. V. Brooks (.-)0 Conn. 278), 444, 4G8. V. Farrand (88 Mich. 473), 220, 231, 232, 243. V. .Johnson (2 Bos. 1), 131, 177, 284, 444. V. Mitchell (45 C. C. A. 205), 117, 463. V. Mitciiell (106 Fed. Rep. 168), 457. V. Osborne (13 L. T. N. S. 498), 444. V. Pope (215 Fed. Rep. 1000). 435. 436. V. Spenco (25 How. Pr. 366), 131. Williams v. Williams (3 Mer. 157), 2:.4, V. Wilson (4 Sandf. Ch. 379), 229. Williams Mfg. Co. v. Noera (158 Mass. 110), 149. Wiiiiier V. Tliomas (74 Md. 485), 30, 386. Wilson V. American Ice Co. (206 Fed. Rep. 736), 428. V. Delaney (137 la. 636), 248. V. Singer Mfg. Co. (12 Fed. Rep. 57), 84. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v Butler Bros. ( 128 Fed. Rep 976), 394. V. Peters Cartridge Co. (30 App D. C. 505), 110. V. Peters Cartridge Co. (C. D. 1908, p. 401), 562. Winn V. Gilmer (27 Fed. Rep. 817) 536. Winsor V. Clyde (9 Phila. 513) 403. W irtz V. Eagle Bottling Co. (50 X J. Eq. 164), 296, 306. Witkop & Holmes Co. v. Boyce (112 X. Y. S. 874), 257. V. Boyce (118 X. Y. Supp. 461, 464). 363. V. Boyce (61 X. Y. Misc. 126), 361. V. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (124 X. Y. Supp. 956), 360. Witt V. Reed lifectric Co. (187 Pa. 424), 263. Witthaus V. Braun (44 Md. 303), 25. 27, 28, 227. Wolfe V. Alsop (2) (12 Vict. L. R., ]•:., 421), 418. V. Alsop (10 V. L. R. Eq. 41), 110. V. Barnett (24 La. Ann. 07), 213, 444. V. Burke (56 X. Y. 115). 174. XCIV TAIU.K ()K t"ASt>. WolWvc lit ftTcurrs (in tn pages. Wolfi- V. Burkr (7 N. V. Sup. Ct.). i:.n. 70. V. Coulanl t IS Wow. Vr. (U 1 , 110, If)!!. V. Mart (4 V. h. K. Kq lir.). 110. 346. V. Lan;: ( i:< Vict. I.. K. 752). 110, 41S. Wolf Hros. i Co V. llamiltonRrown SluH' Co. ( 165 K.'d. K.'p. 4l:n. 1!»5. .124. V. Unniilton-nrown Siioc Co. (125 (►. (J. (167). 5.1!t. Wood V. Rurpess ( T.. V^. 24 Q. B. 1). 162). 411. V. Butler (.3 R. P. C .SI). 7!>. V. Hincliman (IIU t)fT. (Ja/.. 600), 336. V. Lambort ( L. K. :}2 Ch. I). 247). !•. 62. 215. Woodcofk V. (\\\\ (3.3 Wasli. 2:54). 66, 821. Woodman v. rnitcd States (15 Ct. of CI. 541), 501. Woods V. Sands ( Fed. Caso No. 17n63), 181, 355. Woodward v. Lazar (21 Cal. 448), 355. 637. Woolf V. W(K)lf (43 Sol. .1. 127), 4!tO. WOolntT V. Hiiiiiic-k (170 i'cd. Kcp. 662), 410. Woolhcy V. Judd (4 Dui-r. 37!M . Woost. V. Renter 4 Co. (84 C. C. A. 605), 111, 206. 4.58. Worden v. California Kip Syrup Co. ( 102 Fed. Rep. 334), 100. \\ orden 4 Co. v. California Fijj Syrup Co. (187 T. S. 515), 100. 447. Woini>er V. Siiayne (11 III. App. 5561, 445. WotherKpoon v. Curie (22 K. T. N. S. 260). 3)». V. Currie ( L. R. 5 II. L. .508), 121. 171. 1»4, 2»3, 29.'!. V. (;ray (Ct. Sess. Cas., 3d Her., 2. 3Si. 113. W Oven Stet'l Co. v. Keashey & Mat- tis5). 64. 1.59. 174, 181. V. R. W. Ropers Co. (66 Fed. Rep. (i6i. 174, 175, 177. V. Simpson (54 Conn. 527), 175. Wm. Wripley, .Jr.. & Co. v. Cirovp Co. ( Itil r.d. R.-i>. 885), 111. V. Xoni> 1.34 Aj.].. D. C. 138). 111. W . X. Sliarpe. Ltd. v. Solomon Bros. (31 R. P. C. 441. 4.501. !»7. \\ riplit V. Simpson (15 OlT. Haz. '.168 ). 32. 502. 518. Wriplit & Taylor v. Rlutlientlial .t Riekert (119 (). (J. 2234). 571. W. R. Lynn Slioe Co. v. Auburn- Lynn Shoe Co. (62 At I. Rep. 4!l!n. 115. Wy.kolT V. Howe Scale Co. (100 Fed. Re|>. .520), 66. WyekofT. Seamans 4 Rene»liet v. Ilowi- Seal*' Co. (58 C. C. A. 510). 66. Yul-Zyc TABLE OP CASES. XCV Yale & Towne Mfp. Co. v. Alder (154 Fed. R.'p. 37), 37ft, 371. V. Aldor (83 C. C. A. 149), 202. Yale MffT. Co. v. Yale (30 Off. C.az. 11H3), 122, -){)2, illl, .')12, i543, 544. Yonkers Brewery v. Her & liurj,'- weger (143 O. G. 258), 572. Young V. Jones (3 Hughes, 274), 2ft. V. Jones (Fed. Case No. 18159), 31, 58. Iteferencea are to pages. Young V. Macrae (9 Jur. N. S. 322), 88, 108. Zanturjian v. Booma/ian (25 R. T. ir)l), 232, 240. Zittlo.sen Mfg. Co. v. Boss (135 C C. A. 551), 193. Zych V. American Car & Foundry Co. (127 Fed. Rep. 723, 727), 486. HOPKINS ON TRADEMARKS CHAPTKH T. PREFATORY. § 1. Primitive merchandise marks. — The history of com- merce is the liistory oi' civilization. The hinterland is but a fairy net-work of legend and fable, of myth that involves itself with a precarious entanglement of possible facts. Just as the refinements of modern thought have produced the juristic science of unfair competition, the vanity, super- stition, or forethought of the primitive trader led him to im- ])rint upon his wares his name, some symbol associated with the religion that calmed his fear of the hereafter, or, finally, a mark to point out the origin of his goods. The idler, scrawling his name with rude graffiti on the walls of Rome or Pompeii, made as near an approach to a trademark as did the kings who pressed their names and titles on the bricks of Babylon. The woBshipper of Mithras imprinted on his bricks the sacred symbol of water, as did the early Christians their favored emblems, the i)alm-braneh and the fishes. But among the very earliest brick-stamps there are speci- mens which bear not merely the maker's name, or a picture of religious significance, but fanciful designs whose object Avas commercial identification unless, indeed, it was purely artistic. So, too, Ave find npon the lead water-pipes exhumed at Ostia symbols to which we may reasonably attribute true trade- ma .-k quality. Maker's names, in the early centuries of the Christian era, are almost universally used. The charred loaves of bread excavated at Pompeii are so marked, and it is generally so 1 § 2] uoi'KiNs DN tiui>i;makks. 2 whh tho hrlcks of Hahyloii and Konic, and lead i»i|>»* wlierc- ovor prodiu'od. OtluT iiiarkiiifrs by Avay of Icltoriiij^ liavc a wide range of significaiu'C, fre(|ucntly indicating ownershij) of tho i»artic'ular article and iiotliiiig more. We walk in almost absolute darkness along these dim his- torie trails. On every hand are signs tliat show the coming importance of trademai-ks. Hut Rome is to reach her zenith and iier debacle, the ^Middle Ages are to intervene, the new world beyond the Atlantic is to be discovered, modern Europe is to bo reorganised by states and jieojiles, before we next reach traces of the use of identifying marks in trade. Even then tlie law of trademarks will not come into existence until generations of traders liavo come and gone. The history of the law of trademarks is pretty accurately at our service. The history of the early use of trademarks has never been written, and most of its evidences have crumbled into dust. For those illuminating examples of ancient marks preserved to us, the labor of the arehteologist alone is responsible, and to him our ai)prociation is due. §2. The need of legal restraint of unfair trade.— It is not the spirit of our laws to intorl'cre with lair competition. It is for the best interests of society that i)rices should be ad- justed by the economical laws of supply and demand. With limitations that have been imjiosed by varying local condi- tions, temjiered by the caprices of legislation and the idio- sjTicrasies of judges, our common and statutoi-v law alike condemn contracts in restraint of trade, and monopolies, com- l)lete or jiartial. But, on tho other hand, there are recognized property rights which are of necessity monopolistic in their character. The most notable are those created by the patent and copyright laws, which grant, for a limited time, a monop- oly in the production of the brain of the author or inven- tor. The value of these laws in the advancement of science, manufacture and art is universally recognized. Closely allied to these rights is the right of those engaged i>i commerce to be subjected to none but fair compi^tit ion. T^nfair comjietition consists in passing f)IT one's goods as the goods of another, or in otherwise securing patronage that should go to another, by falso representations that lead the 3 I'llEl-'ATOHY. [§2 patron to believe that he is ])ali"<)iii/infi^ the other person, it is of vital importance to healthy business conditions that sucii comj)ctition should be suppressed. Tt is equally important, however, that fair competition shall nf)t be interfered with. Whether the competitive acts complained of are fair or un- fair is the controlling issue in eacli litiji;ate(l case. It is apparent that the simplest means of depriving another of the trade he has built up is to copy the marks he places on his merchandise. This is the easiest method of stealing his trade, and most universal because of the general use of marks or brands u])on personal property. The use of such marks runs far back into the shadows of history, and to the period when a knowledge of written language was unusual among tradesmen. It is only natural that these marks used in trade, or trademarks, should have first become the subjects of judi- cial consideration, and that the law concerning them should have reached a state of comparatively complete development before infringers began to emi)loy other and more obscure means to divert trade. It is true, as well, that the development of the law of the technical trademark tended to encourage the buccaneers of commerce to invent new and subtler means of stealing another's trade without trespassing upon his trademark rights. But the law, steadily though slowly, extended its bulwark of pro- tection about the legitimate trader, until at length he was afforded legal redress in some form, not always adequate or complete, against the fraudulent diversion of his trade, in what- ever form it might appear. In the light of these facts it is self evident that the law of the technical trademark must first be mastered before the student can wath understanding study the gradual evolution, from this protoplasm, of the larger law regulating all unfair competition in trade. From the early days of commerce, probably from its be- ginning, the keen rivalry of competing merchants has led to the use of unfair and dishonest methods of diverting custom. With the growth of commerce has come a corresponding in- crease of fraudulent competition and its attendant evils. The English speaking people were slow to realize that some legal §3] nOPKINS ON TKADKMAKKS. restraint should be imjinsed upon the dealer who seeks to se- cure patronajje by dressing his j^oods in a manner i-aleulatcd to deceive the public into a belief that they are the goods of another. Tiiere are a few unimportant unfair trade cases in the Euf^lish rcjjorts of the cif^lilccnth century ; the first reported American decision \\ as rendered in IM!.").' The law as it is administered by the courts of the I'nitcd Stati's today is almost wholly the product of the last half century. The purpose of this treatise is to discuss the law of unfair trade in its broadest sense, inclndini;i. "A trademark is a distinftlvc mark of authenticity through which the products of a particular manufacturer may he di8tinf,'ui8hed from othern." Vceder, J., in United Lace & llraid Co. v. Barth- els Mfjr. Co., 221 Fed. Rep. 457, 459. "A trademark has been very well defined as one's commercial signa- ture to his goods." Dyer, J., in Leideradorf v. Flint, 8 Biss. 327, Fed. Case No. 8,210. For the ori- gin of this definition, see Browne on Trademarks, § i:?0, n. 2 (2d Ed.). The same definition occurs in Star Co. V. \Mieeler Syndicate, 155 X. Y. S. 782. "It is a mode of designating goods as being the goods which have been, in some way or other, dealt with by A. B., the person who owns the trademark." Kay, J., In re The Australian Wine Import- ers (Ltd.), L. R. 41 Ch. D. 278, 281. "Symbols or devices used by a manufacturer or merchant to dis- tinguish the products, manufac- tures, or merchandise which he produces, manufactures or sells, from that of others, are called and known by the name of trade- marks. They are used in order that such products, manufactures or merchandise may be known as belonging to the owner of the symbol or device, and that he may secure the profits from its reputa- tion or superiority." Mr. Justice Clifford in Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51, 56, 25 L. Ed. 903. "Any name, symbol, letter, figure n>;iii or owntTHliip of till- nrtirlf." Moiu-ll, .1., in t;oilillot \. Uu/ard, U N. Y. Suj>. It. 427. "A irailfniark i» . . . tho nnmc, hviuIk)!, lijfiiro, l«'tt«T, form, or ih'vicf iiwd liy u inanufaoturiT or nn'rcliaiit to clrHij^nati' the ^•(mmIs In- nuiiiufaotun-H or nv\\», to ilistin^nnsh tluin from thoso man- ufacturi'd or sold !•% aiiotluT, to i\w .nd that tlu-y nmy W known in the market as his, and to iwcurc Huch profits as rt'Bult from a reputation for superior skill, industry or cn- terpris*'." Crawford. .1., in Lar- rabee v. Lewis. 07 (!a. r)(i2. "A trademark is an arbitrary character or characters without special meaniiij;, adopted by per- sons, firms or corporations for the purpose of identifying the poods manufactiired by them or of which they have the sale." Marble, Commissioner, in A'j parte Frei- berg & Workum, 20 Off. Gaz. IIG). "Broadly defined, a trademark is a mark by which tlie wares of the owner are known in trade. Its ob- ject is two-fold: First, to protect the party using it from competi- tion with inf<-rior articles; and wcond, to j)rotect tiie puldic from imposititin. . . . Anything which can 8<'rve to distinguish one man's productions from thow of another may Ik* used. The trademark brands the goods as genuine, just as the signature to a letter stamjis it as authentic." Coxe, .T., in Shaw Stf ••quity have two objects in view in granting injunctions against their imitation: 1. To si-cure to the in- dividual adopting one the profits of iiis skill, industry and enter- prise; 2. To prot• a commentator on trade- marks, l)een more fully explained as a name, symbol, figure, letter, form, or device, adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to designate the goods he manufac- tures or sells to distinguisli them from the goods of aiiotlier." Alli- son, I*. .1., in FiTguson v. Davol Mills, 2 Hrewst. 314. ".\ trademark is some arbitrary or representative device attached to or sold with merchandise and serving to designat*' the origin or manufacture of tliat merchandise." rUKKAIOUV [§3 Carpenter, J., in Davis v. Davis, 27 Fed. Hep. 400, 491. "Wliat ia a trademark? A 'mark' meanH to make a visible Bi;^n upon Homotliing, to allix a 8ij,'ni(ioant mark lo; to draw, cut, fasten, lirand ; a token upon, indicating or intimating sometiiing; to allix an indication to; to attacli one's name or initials to. A trademark, there- fore, consists of the use in trade of such a mark, jjlaced upon goods manufactured l>y a particular person and ])laei'd in the market with such marks, for sale and trade." Welker, .1., in Adams v. Ileisel, 31 Fed. Rep. 279, 280. "A trademark is properly defined hy Upton (Upton's Trademarks, 9) as 'the name, symbol, figure, letter, form or device adopted and used liy a manufacturer or merchant, in order to designate the goods that he manufactures or sells, and dis- tinguish tliem from those maiuifac- tured or sold hy anotlier, to the end that tlii'y may be known in the market as his, and thus enable him to secure such profits as result from a reputation for superior skill, industry or enterprise.' The trademark must he used to indi- cate not the quality, but the origin or owiiership of the article to Mhich it is attached. It may be any sign, mark, symbol, word or words, which others have not an equal right to employ for the same purpose." Earl, Commissioner of Appeals, in Newman v. Alvord, 51 N. Y. 189, 193. "Every one is at liberty to affix to a product of his own manufac- ture any symbol or device, not pre- viously appropriated, which will distinguish it from articles of the same general nature manufactured or Hold by others, and thus «ecure to himself the benefits of increased sale by reason of any peculiar ex- cellence he may have given to it. The Hyml)ol or device thus becomea a sign to tlie public of the origin of till- goods to which it is attached, and an assurance tiiat they are the geiuiine article of the original pro- ducer. In this way it often {)roves to be of great value to the manu- facturer in preventing the substitu- tion and sale of an inferior and difl'erent article for his products. It becomes his trademark, and the courts will protect him in its ex- clusive use." Mr. Justice Field in Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v Trainer, 101 U. S. 51, .53; 25 L. Ed. 993. "Trademark. — An arbitrary sym- bol affixed by a manufacturer or merchant to a vendible commodity. The principal purpose of a trade- mark is to guarantee the genuine- ness of a product. It is, in fact, the commercial substitute for one's autograph. In all ages it has been used to denote origin, and thus protect the purchaser as well as the vendor. All countries protect the integrity of trademarks, and nearly all civilized nations have treaties or conventions securing reciprocity of protection. The tests of a trademark are: 1. Universal- ity; that is, commonly recognized as such. 2. Exclusiveness; in the possession of the owner. 3. Indi- viduality; must indicate origin and ownership. 4. ^lust be for mer- chandise. 5. ^lust be in a lawful business. G. Must be distinct and invariable." Knight's ilechanical Dictionary, title "Trademark," ]). 2009. "Our word 'trademark' compre- liends both the marque tie fabrique §3] IDI'KINS ON TKAKW.M \KKS. 8 ami marque ilc <<>mmcrrc of France." Townsend, .1., in La Re- puliUque Frnncaisf v. Scluiltz, 57 FikI. Hop. 37, 41. "A distinctive mark of authen- ticity, throuj,'h which the products of particular manufacturers or the vendible commodities of particular merchants may l>o distin<,nii8hed from those of others." Mr. Chief .lurstiee Fuller in Kl}.Mn Nat. Watch Co. V. Illinois Watch Case Co. (21, 170 V. S. ('.(ir>, ()73, 45 L. Ed. 305. '•.V trademark is a name or a mark or a device which is at- tached to the article to point out its origin." Shipman, J., in Adee V. Peck Bros. & Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 209, 210. "A trademark is a word, a sym- Ih>1 or device hy which the wares of the owner are known in trade." Coxe, J., in Kipling v. G. P. Put- nam's Sons, 120 Fed. Rep. 631, 57 C. C. A. 295. "A trademark is an arbitrary, distinctive name, symbol, or de- vice, to indicate or authenticate the origin of the product to which it is attached." Deemer, C. J., in Sartor v. Rchaden, 101 X. W. Rep. 511, 125 Iowa, GOG. "A trademark is a notice, a me- dium of information touching ori- gin or ownership." Showalter, J., in Beadleston & Woerz v. Cooke Brewing Co., 20 C. C. A. 405; 74 Fed. Rep. 229, 234. "A trademark is a means of au- thenticating or indicating the ori- gin of an article." Hillings, .!., in Johnson v. Schenck, Fed. Case No. 7,412. "A trademark is a distinctive mark of authenticity through which the products of a particular man- ufacturer may be distinguished from otliers." Veeder, J., in United L. & H. Mfg. Co. V. Barthfls Mfg. Co., 221 Fed. Rep. 456, 459 (ob- viously too limited because it does not cover natural products, selec- tors' marks, etc. ) . "A trademark is a guaranty that the goods to wliich it is attached are made l>y its owner." Coxe, J., in American Tobacco Co. v. Polacsek, 170 Fed. Rep. 117, 120. "A trademark is a distinctive name, word, mark, emblem, design, symbol, or device used in lawful commerce to indicate or authenti- cate the source from which has come, or throtigh which has passed, the chattel on or to which it is afTi.xed." Fly, -T., in Western Grocer Co. v. CalTerelli Bros. (T.X.), 108 S. W. Rep. 413, 414, (not ofricially reported) adopting tlie definition of the author. "A trademark is something used on salable articles to designate them as the articles made by A., and to distinguish them from simi- lar articles made or sold by B." Torrance, J., in Hygeia Distilled Water Co. v. Hygeia Ice Co., 40 Atl. 534, 540; 70 Conn. 516. "The only recognized indication of a trademark is the source, ori- gin or ownership of an article of merchandise on which it is placed. Caswell v. Davis, 58 N. Y. 223; 17 Am. Rep. 233. This means that the mark is calculated to distin- guish the artich'S which bear it from those of other makers or ven- dors. It need not indicate any jiarticular person as maker, manu- facturer, or vi-ndor, or give the name or address of either. When tlie mark has become recognized by j)urcliasers as a distinctive desig- nation of a particular manufae- turcr, maker, or seller of a cc-rtain quality of goods, it will be a suf- PREFATORY. [§3 tive^ name, word, mark, emblein, design, symbol or device, used in lawful commerce to indicate or authenticate the source from which has come, or through which lias passed," the chattel vipon or to which it is applied or affixed." ficii'iit indication of tiic origin or ownersliip, within tiic rule requisite to its protection as such, though purcliasers may not, from the words or otherwise, l)e able to tell who is the particular maker or seller of the articles. Its value is in its employment, marking the goods on which it is placed. This gives it the character of property. It is, then, a symbol of reputation or good will." People v. Fisher, 50 Hun, 552; 3 N. Y. Supp. 786; adopted in State v. Bishop, 31 S. W. Rep. !), II; 128 ilo. 373; 29 L. R. A. 200; 40 Am. St. Rep. 569. 4 — By the word "distinctive," as used in our definition, is meant that the mark must be something which "shall be capable of distin- guishing the particular goods in relation to which it is to be used from other goods of a like charac- ter belonging to other people." Lord Chief Justice Russell, in Rowland v. Mitchell, L. R. (1897) 1 Ch. D. 71, 74; Wood v. Lambert, L. R. 32 Ch. D. 247 ; 54 L. T. N. S. 314; 3 P. R. 81; (Court of Ap- peals) L. R. 32 Ch. D. 257; 55 L. J. Ch. 277; 54 L. T. N. S. 317; 3 P. R. 88; Re Perry Davis & Son, 58 L. T. N. S. 695 ; 5 P. R. 333, and many similar English cases treat of the word "distinctive" as used in the English Patents, Designs and Trademarks Act of 1883, section 64, subsection 1, c. But the word is used with the same significance by our own leading jurists, as for example, by ]\rr. Chief Justice Fuller, in Elgin National Watch Co. V. Illinois Watch Case Co. (2), 179 U. S. 665, 673; 45 L. Ed. ;i79 ; by Justice Holmes, in Northeastern Awl Co. V. Marlborough Awl Co., 168 Mass. 147 ; 60 Am. St. Rep. 373 ; and by Judge Lacombe in National Biscuit Co. V. Baker, 95 Fed. Rep. 136. For this reason the word is in- corporated in the definition given in the text. 5 — "The use of a trademark docs not necessarily and as a matter of law import that the articles upon which it is used are manufactured by its user. It may be enough that tliey are manufactured for him; that he controls their production, or even that they pass through his hands in the course of trade, and that he gives to them the benefit of his reputation, or of his name and business style." Sheldon, J., in Nelson v. J. H. Winchell & Co., 203 Mass. 75; 89 N. E. Rep. 180; citing Weener v. Brayton, 152 Mass. 101, 102; 25 N. E. Rep. 46; 8 L. R. A. 640 ; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245, 253; 24 L. Ed. 828; :\Ienendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514, 520; 32 L. Ed. 526; Godillot v. Harris, 81 K Y. 263, 266; In re Australian Wine Importers, L. R. 41 Ch. D. 278, 280, 281; Major Brothers v. Franklin (1908), 1 K. B. 712; Ullman v. Leviba (1908), A. C. 443. 6 — The mode in which the mark is applied or affixed is immaterial. It may be water-marked in trans- lucent fabrics. Price v. Goodall, L. R. (1891) 1 Ch. D. 35. It has been held to be a sufficient method §4] rUAHK.M AKK^ 10 §4. Tradename defined. — Tlio word "tradename'' as nscd in the di'risions lias two diilVrent meaning's. Standing; alone, and separate from the word "trademark" it includes all busi- ness names; while in the expression "trademarks and trade- names" it means all l)usiness names which are not technical trademarks.' Mr. l)rowne, in his valuable treatise on trademarks (sec. 91) uses the rollouinfr lanprnape: "the distinction will be readily- comprehended, when it is remembered that a trademark owes its existence to the fact that it is actually affixed to a vendible commodity. A tradename is more properly allied to the grood- will of a business." This distinction is of itself decidedly misleading. ]\Iany tradenames are "actually affixed to a vend- ible commodity,"^ and as both trademarks and other trade- names are a constituent part of the goodwill of the business in which they are used, it is not possible for one class of names to be more properly allied to the goodwill than the other, nor is it proper to say of either that it is "allied'' to some- thing of which it is a component part. A name is frequently referred to as a "trademark" and as a "tradename" in the same opinion.^ Some of our ablest judges treat the words "tradename" and "trademark" as synonymous.^" Some of the cases dealing with tradenames are fairly be- wildering to one who endeavors to reconcile them or deduce of afTixinp tin- mark, to use it in advert isiiifr, and to place a litlio- grai)hed fac-simile of it on a card, in a lx)X containing a quantity of the goods. Hay & Todd Mfg. Co. V. Querns Hrothers, 8(5 Off. Gaz. 1323. It has heen held that to dis- play the mark on a show-card placed on lots of candy in a show window, is not sufficient to cstah- liflh a trademark right therein. Oakes v. St. Louis Candy Co., 140 Mo. 391; 48 S. \V. Rep. 407. 7— N. K. Fairhank Co. v. Luckel, King &, Cake iSuup Co., 102 i'^cd, Kep. 327. 331; 42 C. V. A. 370; 02 Off. Gaz. 1437. 8 — As "Minnesota Patent," in Pillshury-Washburn Co. v. Eagle, 80 Fed. Rep. 008; 30 C. C. A. 380; and "Wnltliam." in American Waltliam Watcli C... v. Ignited Stat<'8 Watch Co., 173 Mass. 8."); r)3 X. E. Rep. 141. '.) — Opinion of Seaman, J., in Postum Cereal Co. v. American Health Food Co., 100 Fed. Rep. 808. 10— Thomas G. Plant Co. v. May Co., 44 C. C. A. .'534; 10') Fed. Rep. 375. 11 PREFATOKV. [§4 a general definition of "tradename'' from them. In a Mass- achusetts case, for example, the court found that the defendant had acquired the right to the use of the name "John G. Lor- ing & Co." as a "trademark" on goods, but had no right to use it as a tradename.'^ This confusion is not lessened by those opinions in which the courts seek to i)oint out functions common to trademarks and tradenames. For example, "a 'trademark' or 'tradename' is some symbol l)y which one man's manufacture is differ- entiated from another's." '- As a proper name can not be a trademark, under principles discussed elscAvhere is this book, while the meaning of the word as used by the court is clear, the opinion lends no assistance to the distinction between "trademark" and "trade- name. ' ' Historically, this confusion probably arose in the English decisions. In one of the leading cases we find that Lord Chan- cellor Westbury said "a name or the style of a firm may by long usage become a mere trademark," ^^ and in the same case, in the House of Lords, Lord Cramvorth referred to the difficulties which "may arise where the trademark consists merely of the name of the manufacturer." ^^ Lord Romilly said in another case "the name or style of the firm of 'Banks & Co.' was an asset of the partnership, and if the whole concern and the good Avill of a business have been sold, the name, as a trademark, would have been sold with it." 1^ With this loose use of the word trademark by such eminent judges some forty years since, it is not remarkable that the bench and the profession have not yet drawn the line separat- ing trademarks from tradenames with any degree of lucidity. The question of mere definition is nearly always a matter of secondary importance in the progress of any science. The want of an accurate distinction between trademarks and trade- ll_Bo\vman v. Floyd, 85 Mass. 14 — Leather Cloth Co. v. Ameri- 76. ' can Leather Cloth Co., 11 H. L. C. 12 — Hand, J., in R. Guastavino 523, 533. Co. V. Comerma, 180 Fed. Rep. 920. 15— Banks v. Gibson, 34 Beav. 13— Leather Cloth Co. v. Ameri- 566. can Leather Co., 4 DeG. J. &. S. 141, 144. 1 IIDI'KINS ON rKAI)i:.\J.VUKS. 12 names has n«)t liaiupori'il llio ^[rowlli of this l»raiu-li itf llic law; if it had, the distiiu-tion would lony: siiu-c have boon drawn by the cKiirts. The prinoipU-s involved in trademark eases and tradename eases have b»'en substantially identieal. liut witli their development it has been neeessary to sharply de- tine the teehnieal tradenuirk, and if it were possil)le to draft as aeeurate a definition of trailename the result would be to measure the metes and bounds of the field of cases in Avhich relief will be frranted ajiainst the fraudulent use of a word or j)hrase used as the distinguishing identitieation mark of a eommereial enterprise or article of trade. It is clear that words of common right ought not to be ealled tradenames. Thus, the word "cracker" imprinted on a soda cracker indicates merely that it is a soda-cracker. As the article itself convoys that knowledge, tiie word is super- tluous. Mark the cracker "Uneeda," and an entirely differ- ent result follows. The word is a trademark.'"' The word, so affixed, moots the recmirements of all the definitions given herein. It is a distinguishing indication of origin and owner- ship. Hut take an oxam])le of another kind of word api)lied to a common stajile article of nu'rcliaiulise. "Flour" stamped on a sack of Hour is meaningless. "Patent Flour" means something more. "^liiinesota Patent Flour" means i)atent flour nuido in ^Minnesota. Clearly the word "flour" alone, and the words "Patent F'lour" together, can not be called trade- names, though they are names used in ti-ade. They are of common right. Thoy can be truthfully ajiplied to flour re- gardless of the place where, or the i)orson by ^\ilom, it is j)roduccd. "Minnesota Patent Flour" is not a trademark. It is of common right to all j)ersons producing patent flour in Minne- sota. Hut it is a tradename, because it will bo a medium of fraud if persons producing flour elsewhere than in Minnesota are iKTinittcd to apply it to their flour.'^ To use another cxamjdo of a very connnon class. Any one can make soap and mark it "Soap." Any soap numufacturor can call his soap "Host Soap." A partiodar mainifacturer adds his name to this mark and produces " I'abhitt 's liest 1(V— N'ationnl HimMiit Co. \ 17 — I'illHlmry ■ \\ iiKlilMirri Flour lUk.r. Ji.'i ]•','<] It.j.. ]Ar,. MillH Co. v. Kii;.-!.-, IW C. C. A. 380; MCi I'.'.l. IN-p. ens. 13 I'KEl'ATOKY. [§4 Soap." lie has not made a trademark but he lias made a tradename.'** Another per.son named liabbitt entering the market subsequently must clearly distinguish his soap from that of the other Habbitt. An example of a word descriptive of the composition of the article itself is "Cellular Cloth," a cloth fabric having cells in its texture. This is not a tradename,"* while "Camel's Hair" belting is.'-" The reason for the distinction lies solely in the fact that the latter words became established in the trade as designating the goods of the first introducer. While the two marks on their faces are in identically the same category, the circumstances surrounding their commercial use have rendered the first strictly of common right, and the second that sort of quasi- trademark which for convenience, and because of the in- adequacy of our vocabulary, mc are constrained to call a tradename. With all of these distinctions before us, and having regard solely to the meaning which should attach to the word "trade- name" if it is to be accurately differentiated from the technical trademark, on the one hand, and the names completely puhlici juris employed in commerce on the other, the author submits the following definition : A tradename is a word or phrase by which a business enterprise or business location or specific articles of merchandise from a specific source are known to the jniblic, and which when applied to merchandise is generic or descriptive and hence not susceptible of appropriation as a technical trademark. This definition, the author confidently believes, will aid the reader in properly classifjnng and distinguishing the "trade- mark" and "tradename" cases, and that it properly includes not only commercial names other than those applied to mer- 18— Babbitt v. Brown, 68 Hun. Warner Bros. Co. v. Wicn.r. 218 olf). Otlicr examples are the case Fed. Ro]). G:}.'). of the "Dr. A. Rood Cushion Shoe," 10— Cellular Clothinjj Co. v. Dr. A. Reed Cushion Shoe Co. v. ^Maxton, L. R. (1809) App. Ca?. Frew, 162 Fed. Rep. 887; 89 C. C. .VH]. A. .577, modifying Dr. A. Reed 20 — Reddaway v. Banham. L. R. Cushion Shoe Co. v. Frew, 1.58 Fed. (1896) App. Cas. 199. Rep. 552 ; the "Warner Corset" case, §4] HOIKING ON I li \lil.M \I. 14 chniulisc, but those names applied to merchandise whieli thoiitrh tliey are not trademarks liave aequiretl a secondary meaning in the trade and hence are protected in eqnity a^'ainst their use by another in frandulent competition. -' Thns .Indj:e Wolverton, speaking' of the worda "Turpentine Shellai-" a|)plied to a wood lilU'r. hjus said, "As a tradename, it may he properly so employed, luit within itself it is inapt for exclusive appropriation as a trademark, Heyond this, how- ever, words or syiidtols naturally descriptive of the product, while not adapted for exclusive use as a trademark, may yet ac(juire. by loiifj and ijeneral usage in connection with the jireparation and by association with the name of the manu- facturer, a secondary meaning or signification, such as will cxjjress or betoken the goods of that manufacturer only, and in this sense he will be entitled to i)rotection from an unfair use of the designation or tradename by others that may result in his injury and in fraud of the public." -'- It has been asserted that "as a general rule a trademark lias reference to the thing sold, while a tradename embraces both tiie thing sold and the individuality of the seller."--' This may be true if the tradename happens to be a proper name ; otherwise it is an absolute mis-statement. No such distinction can be found in the cases, or in reason, A trade- mark concerns the individuality of the dealer quite as much as a tradename. As to the relative scoi)e of tradenames as com]iared with trademarks, the (piestion presented is wholly academic. From a careful study of the cases it would seem clear that the trade- mark right is the broader and by far the more valuable; though the Kansas court has held the contrary.-^ 21— "A tradonnmr i\nvn nut liuvc 2.3— Gosi-, .1., in KiistiTii (hitfit- to Ik> i § 5. Earliest recognition of trademarks. — While the reports of the first English trademark case are not harmonious, it is probable that the report of Popham is substantially correct. It is as follows: "An action upon the case was brought into the common pleas by a clothier that whereas he had gained great reputation for his making of his cloth by reason of which he had great utterance to his great benefit and profit, and that he used to set his mark to his cloth whereby it should be thing sold, and the latter involves 4.S L. R. A. 0."); 70 Am. St. Rep. also the individuality of the maker 7S(?. That opinion is authority for both for protection in trade and to the proposition that, in seeking an avoid confusion in business, as well injunction in such case§, it is not as securing the advantages of a necessary to show damages nor good reputation. It is said that a fraudulent intent." Benson, J., in tradename, therefore, has a broader Harryman v. Harrj-man, 144 Pac. scope than a trademark. Tliese oh- Rep. 202; 03 Kas. 22.3. sorvations are found, in substance, 25 — Kerly on Trademarks, 2nd in the opinion in Armington v. ed., London, 1901, p. 475. Palmer, 21 R. I. 100; 42 Atl. 308; §6] UoiKi.N> UN l'KAl>r.M VUKS. 16 known to be his cloth; and another i-K)tlii(M- porcoivinp it \iscd the sanu* mark to liis ill-nuide doth on purpose to ti« iv.- liiin. atul it was resolved that the aetion did well lie."-"' § G. The evolution of the law of trademarks. Tliis decision, rendered in 15IH). was the first legal recognition of trademarks. The prowth of that reeofinition was very gradual, however, for as late as 17-42 we liiid Lord llardwieke sayinfr that he "knew no instance of n-straining one trader from making use of the same mark with another."-^ although the learned ehaneellor takes judicial cognizance of the widespread use of trademarks, ohscrving that "every jtarticular trader had some ]>articular mark or stamp." And a century later Lord Langdale said : "It does not seem to me that a man can acquire property merely in a n;iiiic ui- inark."-** § 7. The relative protection g^ven by patents and trade- marks. — "Isually the ])rotection given by the patent is far greater, though of less duration in time, than that obtained by the use of a trademark, because if an article is i)atented. nobody but the owner of the patent can without his consent make or sell anything embodying the same i>rineiples or ele- ments, while a trademark only secures one in the use of the name or emblem adopted by him and applied to the article." 2* I.IO; 33 L. J. Ch. 204; 10 Jur. N. S. 55; 9 L. T. N. S. 561; Cox. Man- ual, Case No. 215. Opinion of Wi'sthury, L. C, in Loatlirr Cloth Co. V. Amorican LcathtT Clotli Co., 4 Di'G. J. & S. 141; Lord Cran- worth, in House of Lords, s. c, 11 II. L. C. 533; Lord Kinf,'8down, in Iltiuse of Lords, s. c, 11 H. L. C. 544; Mcsscrole v. Tvnl>er;r, 4 Alih. Tr. N. S. 410; 3(i How. Pr. 14; Cox, 470; Oilman v. llnnnc well, 122 Mass. 130; Cox, Manual. Case No. 541; Fish Bros. Wapon Co. V. Fish Bros. Mfjj. Co., 05 Fed. Uep. 4.'-)7, 401; 37 C. C. A. 140. 20— Allen, J., in Dover Stamp- inp Co, V. Fellows. 103 Mass. 101; 40 N. F. T^en. 105; 47 Am. St. Rep. US; 2R L. R. A. 448. 26 — Southern (or Southerne) v. How, 2 Pojiliam, 144; Cro. Jac. 471; 2 Kolle, 2H; Cox, 633; Seb. Dip. 1. 27— Hlaiuhard v. Hill, 2 Atk. 484; Cox, 633; S«b. Dig. 2. Mr. Sohastian ohserves of this de- cision : "The decision Bporty ripht. Hal! V Harr.)WM. 4 P.-O .T A "^ 17 I'KKKATOKV. [§M §8. Trademarks distinguished from patents and copy- rights. — Wliilc Iradciiiarks to a dc^M-cc paiMakr of the natui-c of both patents and cojjyrifjhts, and tlic three have many povorniiifx lofjal priiiciplos in comnion, there are w'u\o difTcr cnces so|)aratinf]: each from tlio otliors. As statod by Mr. Justice Miller in Trademark Cascs,^'^ "the ordinary trademark has no necessary relation to inventirm or discovery. The trademark recoj;nized by the common law is fjenerally the growth of a considerable period of use, rather than a sudden invention. Tt is often the result of accident rather than desifrn. and -when under the act of conroduet of the rartii. or the handlinjr or seleetion of the poods, or some labor tliat has been pn lonned in eonne**- tion therewith. It serves solely to jrnide tlie i)ublic to the troods it wants to buy, acting as a perpetual means of idcnti- tieation and advertisement of poods of repute. ^ 10. Nature of the right to a trademark. — The ri«;lit to a trademark is a right of property,'"' which the state may, in the e.xereise of its police j)ower, protect by appropriate penal legislation. This right of property is, in the United tho origin, manufacture or owner- ship of artich'8 to whicli it is ap- plied, and thereby secure to its owner all benefit resultinj,' from his idcntitication by the puljlie with the articles bearinjj it. No person other than the owner of a trade- mark has a right, without the con- tmni of such owner, to use tiie same V. Thomas Mfg. Co., 04 F.-d. U.p. Gal, GJG. "The sign, symbol or mark may be purely fanciful, and convey no information iis to the name of the producer. JUit the essential thing is that it shall be de.^igned and used to indicate the origin of the article and that all articles having on like articles, because by so doin^ the same mark come from a com- he would in substance falsely rep- resent to the public that his goods wi-re of the manufacture or .selec- tion of the owner of the trademark, and thereby wouhl or might de- prive the latter of the profit he otherwise miglit make by the sale f>f the goods which the purchaser intended to buy. Wiiere a trade- mark is infringed the essence of the wrong cfinsists in the sale of the goods of one manufacturer or vendor as thow of anotlu-r, and it ia on this ground that a court of equity protects tradi-marks. It is not nec«-itHary that a trademark nhould on its face show the origin, manufacture or ownership of the mon source." Lurton, J., in Deor- ing Harvester Co. v. Whitman & Barnes Mfg. Co., 91 Fed. Kep. .{7(5, ;iSO; :V.i C. C. A. r.aS; atlirming Deering Ilarvi'ster Co. v. Whitman &, Barnes Mfg. Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 764. "A trademark is a trademark because it is indicative of the ori- gin of th" goods." Denison. J., in Merriam v. Saalfield, 11)8 Fed. Rep. ■M\<), .■?72; 117 C. C. A. 245, 248; followed in DeVoe SnulT Co. v. WolfT, 124 C C. A. 302; 20(1 Fed. Rep. 420, 423. 34 — "It is not essential to prop- erty in a trademar!: that it slunild indicate any particMihir person as articlcii to wliich it is ap|i1ieKMAIMV(juisitc' to the acquisition of a tradoinark. The eontrary ruh' obtains in Enjjhind; reg- istration lieiiij; neeessary to eutith' the owner to sue for iu- fringenieiit." A i»eeuliar elemetit of tlie trademark riglit is tliat it must l)e used as an eutirety.^-^ The owner of a trademark can not eonvey to others territorial rijrhts to its use,"*^ and a i)artners interest in the trademarks owned by the partnersliiji can not he h'vied upon l>y or suhjeeted to tlie payment of ehnms of his personal creditors.'*'* § 11. The test of exclusiveness. — The trademark right must he exclusive; by this test it stands or falls. As Judge Cochran has said, "what makes a mark affixed by a seller to goods jirodueed or selected by him a technical trademark (i. f.. one whose exclusive use by him in marking goods of the same or like character will be protected) is that when it is affixed to goods of that character it amounts to a rep- resentation that they are the goods of the jjcrson who has adoi)ted it as his trademark. If it does not amount to such a representation, it is not a technical trademark." ""^ § 12. Requisites of a valid trademark. — As seen in our detinition, a trademark must (a) Be used in lawful commerce; (b) Be in some way applied or affixed to a subject of law- ful commerce ; (e) Be di.stinctive, identifying the character of the article to which it is .so affixed. As comprehensive and concise a statement of the recjuisites of a valid trademark as can be found in the books is as fol- lows: "The trademark must be used to iiulicate not the quality, but the origin or ownership of the article to which it is attached. It may be any sign, mark, symbol, word or 41 — Tlio Morc-hnndiKc ■NturkH Acts, tccliirual trailrmarki , boo Estoa v. 1BR7-1R(»4 {r>0 nnd f.l Vict, c. 28). Williunirt, 21 Fid. H.p. 180. 42 — MnnliHttan Med. f'o. v. \V«iod, 4-1 — 'I'liylor v. Bcniis, 4 Hiss. 40(1; Pod. Ceho \o. 9020; 4 Cliff. 4(51. Cox, Manual, 132; Fed. Case No. 4:i_Sn(Mlt'rHHH V. W.Hh, U Mo. 1.1770. j\pp. .'iOO. Per contra aw to tlif titlo 45 — BiHW-ll fliillcd IMow Works of a periodical puldication (not a v. T. M. BinHcU TMow Co., 121 Fod. Rpp. 357, 304. 21 ritEPATOUY. [§13 words, which others have not an ('(lual ri^'lit t(t ('ni]il()y for the same j)urpose. ' ' "*" These are fundamental conditions which are never varied, and to whieli there can be no exception. Tiiere are further conditions wliicli we will examine in detail in a sidjsefjuent chapter. § 13. Perpetual existence. — The life of a trademark Ls as long as its continuous use by the owner or his assignees. It is only terminated by abandonment, whieli we will deal with later. "A trademark may increase in value to its owners by use, and the law eould not put a time limit on the owner's right to it any more than it eould ])ut a limit upon his right to use any other article of property. " ^'^ The act of 1881 provided (§;")) that a certificate of reg- istry shall in the case of articles manufactured in this country remain in force for thirty years from its date, subject to re- newal for a like jieriod at any time during the six months prior to the exjiiration of the term of thirty years; so that all protection and benefit of that act will be lost by failure to renew within the period stated. But congress was careful to provide further (§ 11 act of 1881) that nothing in the act shall be construed as unfavorably affecting a claim to a trade- mark after the term of registration shall have expired. By the act of 1905 (§12), the force of the certificate is limited to twenty years' duration with renewal privileges, and §23 provides that nothing in the act "shall prevent, lessen, impeach, or avoid any remedy at law or in equity which any party aggrieved by any wrongful use of any trademark might have had if the provisions of this act had not been passed.'' §14. Territorial limitation. — Unlike a patent, a trademark knows no territorial limitation. The right of a trademark can not be "limited to any place, city or state and therefore must be deemed to extend every- 46 — Earl, Commissioner of 47— Hoyt v. Hoyt. 143 Pa. 623, Appeals, in Newman v. Alvord, 51 22 Atl. Rep. 755. N. Y. 180, 193. § 14] llolKINS ON Tll.\DKM.VKKS. 22 \vhcro."*^ Tin* fact lliat a rorporat iciii (iwiiiii^,' a Iradcinark fails to comply with tlu* foroi^jii (.'orporatioii law of a state is no justification ft)r infrinjircnnMit by another within such state,*" and, more broadly stated, 'tht' fact that i-oniplainant has not up to this time (/. r. of the suit) extended its trade to the locality occuiiied by the respondent." is no defense to a char^'c of trademark infriiifjement.'"' The courts of the I'nited States, and those of the several states, are open to the owners of tradenuirks of whatever citizenship or nationality who may seek to i)rotcct tlicir trade- marks against piracy,''' The act of congress of 1881 provided for the rcfiistration of traijrn country, or tribe, which, by treaty, convention or law, affords similar privilej;cs to citizens of the United States" (Act of 1881, sec. Ij, and substantially the same provision is contained in the Act of 190'), sec. 1. The ac,'islati()n in liis own 514; S*-b. 83; Taylor v. Carjientcr country. Saxlcbii.r v. Kianer & (3), 2 Sandf. 603; 11 Paip-, 2'.l2; Mend.-lson Co.. dl Vnl. Rep. 536. Cox, 45; S.-b. 84: I.«m<.inr v. Can- 53! I ; Sa.xlebmr v. Kisner &. Men- ton, 2 K. D. Smith, 343; Cox, 142; cI.Ihou Co. (2), 179 U. S. 19, 36; fM'b. 125; Derringer v. IMate, 20 45 L. IM. 60. C«l. 292; Cox. 324; S.-b. 249; Col- 23 I'RiciwTouv. [§ 14 llic United States, as against a domestic firm which has estab- lished l)UsiMcss niidor a similar trademark, adopted in good faifli, before the alien had sold any goods in this conntry.'''' In a I'eeeiit ease, an assi^'iiiiieiil of a jrar incaiis of know Icd^'i* ot" the ]»rior uso. Hut wc are daiitrorously close to the l)ortler-laiul of doubt wlieii wo attempt to deline preeisely what tlu' sinuU, local user of a trademark does ae(|uire by that limited and meager use, ••onsideretl as a matter of pure legal right.''* There are, as .!udge Deiiisoii has put it, "two conflicting theories of trade- mark origin and right. • • • and we speak now only of marks wjiich are so-called 'teclinical" trademarks. One theory is that the right arises from adoption. • * • from a kind of creation or discovery followed by approjjriat ion. Whetlier the right is perfect at tlie instant of adoption, or whether there first must be sufficient nse upon the goods to create for the mark a meaning among that i)art of the public which begins to purchase, is a detail which would not usually be important. According to this theory, if the right is once accpiired by l)rior ad(»i>tion. it is by its very nature exclusive of all later similar rights which might otherwise be acquired by similar adojjtion; and from tiiat theory it Avould seem to follow that one wlio lirst adopts the mark and api)lies it to his goods in interstate commerce, and who extends his business into new b)calities. until, in regular course, his business may cover the country, may jn-event the \ise of the mark by another later user, even though that other has ado])tcd the mark in good faith, and in his jiarticular field has given it identity with his goods. How much diligence on this theory the first user must employ in extending his business to get the full benefit of his initial right need not now be considered. The other theory is that no right is perfected until the mark has been used to such an extent that it has come to have a meaning to the particular purchasing jmblic as to which a controversy arises, and that the duty of the courts of ecpiity to enforce such rights depends essentially upon the duly of protecting this i)ublie against being misled, l^'rom this theory it will follow, or it may follow, that the later adopter, who has brought it about .')8 — Thiit H trndcmark i.- not lio-ii.si' t(» list- a triuli-miirk in, j»rop«Tty BH Buoh until it lian he- thcroforo, void, sco IVtroit Cream- <-d, and tliat a naki-d 25 i'i(i;r\i()i{v. [§ 15 ill a pivon locality thai the iiiaiU indicates to the public that the p:oo(ls arc of his iiiaimfact in-c, may thereby himself ae(iuire a tradciiiack ri^ht m- its e(iiii\aieiit , afliniiat ively enforceable in that locality and aiimn^' that public. c\-en a^'ainst the first pro|)rietor. " •''■* This latlci- theory has now received the sanclion of the I'nited States Su|)reine Court, which ha.s declared that "where two ])arties iiulejjcndently are emi)loyiiig the same mark ujjon gjoods of the same class, but in s(»paratc markets wholly remote tlio one from the other, the (piestion of prior ap])roi)riation is legally insignificant ; unless, at least, it api)ear that the .second adopter has selected the mark with some design inimical to the interests of the first user, such as to take the benefit of the reputation of his goods, to forestall the extension of liis trade, or the like.""" The danger of the doctrine thus announced is manifest, its I)ractical apj)lication will be interesting to ob.serve. When a California dealer appropriates the mark of a New York dealer, who is to determine, and by what proof, whether the act was done "to forestall the extension" of the first user's trade? Under the rule so stated, the only safety for the adopter of a trademark in the United States is to immediately occupy everv' market in the country', an operation calling for an immense expenditure, and impos.sible to any but the vastly wealthy cor- porations which are the target for our anti-tiMist laws. § 15. The necessity of user. — There can, finally, be no right in or to a trademark a])art from its use. "The mere sale of a trademark apart from the business in which it has been used confers no right of OAvnership. because no one can claim the right to sell his goods as goods mainifactured by another. To permit this to be done Avould be a fraud ujion the public.''' To quote from a New York court. "There is no such thing as a trademark 'in gross,' to use that term by analogy. Tt o!) — W. A. Gaines & Co. v. Rock (in — Mr. Justice Pitnoy. in Han- Spring Distillincr Co., 226 Fod. over Star Milling Co. v. Mctcalf. Eep. .').3S; 141 C. C. A. 287, 294. 240 U. S. 403; 60 L. Ed. — . 01— Witthaus v. Braun. 44 Md. 303; 22 Am. Rep. 44. § Itij IIOI'KINS i»N tkaukmakks. 26 must be 'appciulnnt ' of some particular business in wliicb it is ai'tually used ui)on. or in rejrard to speeitied articles." "^ It follows, therefore, that the owner of a trademark ean not sell t»'rritori;il ri;.'hts in a t ratleniaik to dilTcri'iit jtci-sons, so as to enable them to make and sell jroods as bcinj; made by liini.''''' "It ;roes without sayin00; 10 .lur. N. N. 550; 10 L. T. N. S. 442; 12 \V. R. 777; 4 N. R. 123; Sel). 234; Kidd " v. .lolinson. HM) r. S. (il7; 2.') L. Kd. 7(;0; W.-Hton V. Krtclnmi (li, .30 N. V. 54 ; F>«atliiT Clotli Co. v. American I^-atli.r Clotli Co., 4 D.-O. J. & S. 1.37; 11 II. L. C. 523; Tin- Fair v. .low Moral.'g & Co., 82 111. App. 40ft. 03— SnodjiraHH v. Wi-Urt, 11 Mo. App. 500. Hut in anotlur caHt' the aHHijrnmc-nt by the Kn;4liMh puh- liHhiT of "Chattlit«h a "Chatterliox" in the l*nit«-il Stati'H wiiH HUKtaiin-d. Kuten V. WilhamH, 21 Fed. Rep. 180. The name, In-in;.' ♦'•m« <( n j..ri,,.|ir h) j>uI)liiation, was not a ti-ehnical trademark. 04 — Kathreiner'.s Malz KafTec Fah. V. Pastor Kneipp Med. C<» , 27 C C. A. 351; 82 Fed. Rep. 321. 32o; jier .Jenkins, .1. 0.") — .Iae<;er's Sanitary \V. S. Co. V. Le Boutillier. 47 Hun, 521. Thus under tlie iMi^ilisli statiites a rejjis- trant is not entitU-d to rejjister a mark for goods in wliich he docs not deal and in which he docs not actually intend t<^ deal. .lolin Bait 6 Co. V. Dunnett, L. R. (1S!)!») A. C. 428. OG— Menende/ V. Holt. 12.S U. S. 514; Levy v. Waitt (1), 50 Fed. Kep. 1010; Levy v. Waitt (2), 01 Fed. Rep. 1(M)S: 10 C. C. A. 227; Rrower v. Houlton (1», 53 Fed. Rep. 380; Rrower v. BouIt«m (2). 7 C. C. A. 507; 5S Fed. Rep. 888; Macmalian Pharmacal C«). v. Den- ver Chemical Mfj,'. Co., 113 Fed. I{ep. 408; 51 C. C. A. 302; Tetlow v. Tappan, 85 Fed. Rep. 774; Heub- Mn v, Adams, 125 F.d. Rep. 782. 27 I'ltKKA'I'oICi [§17 iiitcnl ion lo a(li>|)t llic mark as a 1 ladi-inark )'<»i' a sprcifK; arlii'Ic.''' § 17. Trademarks as subjects of sale, assignment or be- quest. — 111 the early adjudieatioiis llic assif^Mialjility of trade- marks was not clearly established.''^ It can now be said, however, that trademarks arc ^'cuerally assignable during the life time of the owner of the mark, and capable of transmission at his death. Indeed, this rule is the necessary and indispensable correlative of the rule that trademarks have i)er])etiial existence. But tiiere is the neces- sary qualification that with the trademark must go the good- will of the business, the right to select or manufacture the article to which the former owner lias been in the habit of affixing the trademark in use/'" Any other course would tend to mislead the public. It is provided by section 70 of the G7 — Kolilcr Mfg. Co. v. Beeshore, no Fed. Rt'p. r)72, ,')70; 8 C. C. A. 215; Ricliter v. Reynolds, 59 Fed. Rep. 577, 57!); 8 C. C. A. 220. 68 — See Corwin v. Daly, 7 Bos. 222; Cox, 265, where the court says, referring to a name used as a trademark: "The employer of it can neither give any special right to anotlier, nor abandon it to the community so as forever to take away the right of employing it to designate his wares." In an- other case it has been held that one can so sell liis name as to de- prive himself of the right to use it for his own manufacture, and give the right to anotlier." Pro- basco V. Bouyon, 1 Mo. App. 241. In a later case l)efore the same court, however, the court said: "We think the answer to this question depends upon the effect which the use of the name, in each particular instance, is shown to have upon the minds of the pub- lic," and concluded tliat if the pub- lic would be led to believe the as- signor was still manufacturing the goods, when they were tlie manu- facture of anotlier, the transaction would be a fraud upon the public and tlie use of the assigned name would not be protected. Skinner V. Oakes, 10 ^lo. App. 45; Cox, Manual, 680. This dictum was quoted with approval in Oakes v. Tonsmierre, 4 Woods, 547 ; Price & Steuart, 817; 49 Fed. Rep. 447. 69— Atlantic Milling Co. v. Rob- inson, 20 Fed. Rep. 217; Massam v. Cattle Food Co., L. R. 14 Ch. D. 748; Ex parte Lawrence, 44 L. T. X. S. 98; Seb. 630; In re Wellcome, L. R. 32 Ch. D. 213 ; Leather Cloth Co. v. American Leather Cloth Co., 4 DeO. J. & S. 137; 33 L. J. Ch 199; Seb. 223; Goodman v. Meriden Brittania Co., 50 Conn. 139; Witt haus V. Braun, 44 Md. 303; 22 Am Rep. 44; Seb. 492; Skinner v Oakes, 10 Mo. App. 45; 'Baylor v Bemis, 4 Biss 406, Fed. Case 13779 McVeagh v. Valencia Cigar Fac tory, 32 OfT. Oaz. 1124; Price & Steuart, 970; Oakes v. Tonsmierre, 4 Woods, 547, 49 Fed. Rep. 447; Price & Steuart, 817; Baldwin v. §17] HOPKINS ON TKAhKM AKKS. l!S Enirlisli ratiMits. l)»'si<:iis iiiid 'rratlfiiiarUs Art of 1883 that ••A traiU'iuark. wlu'ii iv^MstiTfcl, sliall !>»' assi^jtied and trans- initteil only in oonnrction with the {rooilwill of the bnsiness i-onecrned in tlu' particiihir jrootls or chisscs of j;oods for which it has been rcjristcri'd. and shall ho (Ictfrminable with the pood- will." No corrospondint; jn-ovision existed in the aet of eon- press of 1881. The Act of 1905, sec. 10. i)rovides "that every registered trademark . . . shall be assiu MirluToux, 2r> X. Y. Supp. 8.".7; :iIorj:an v. Rogers, 10 Fed. Rep. .')n6: 12 Off. Ga/. 1113; Smith V. Imus. 32 Alb. L. J. 4")."); Cotton V. Oillaril, 44 L. J. Ch. 90; Smith V. Fair, 14 Ont. Rop. 720; Burton V. Stratton, 12 Fed. Rop. 696; Trice & Steuart, 608; Pepper v. Labrot, 8 Fed. R«p. 20; Chadwick v. Covc-11, l.-)l :Maa9. 100; 23 N. E. Rep. 1008; Cox, ^lanual, 716; Cooper V. Hood, 26 IJ.-av. 203; Churton v. Douglas, -lohns. 174; Shipwriglit v. Clements, 10 W. R. .509; Soliier v. .Johnson, 111 Mass. 238; Cregg v. Bassett, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 203; Dant v. Head, 90 Ky. 2ruy; 13 S. W. R.p. 1073; .T. C. Mattingly Co. v. Mattingly, 06 Ky. 430; 31 S. W. Rep. OSf); Covert v. Bernat, l.'.O Mo. App. 687; 138 S. W. Rep. 103. 70 — Shipwright v. Ch-ments, 10 W. R. nOO; Seb. 350; Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock CongreHrt Sjtring Co., TJ Barb. .'■)20; Cox, fiOO; 4.-. N. Y. 201; 10 Abb. Vt. N. S. 348; 6 Am. Rep. 82; 4 Am. [.. T. 108; Cox, 624; Seb. SM ; WitthauH V. Braun, 44 Md. 303; 22 Am. Rep. 44; Seb. 402; Morgan v. Rogers, 10 Fed. Rep. 596; 26 Off. Gaz. 1113; Cox, Manual, 692; :^Ierry v. Hoopes, 111 N. Y. 420; Cliurton V. Doiiglas, Johns. 174: Fulton V. Sellers, 4 Brewst. 42; Thomi)son v. ^Mackinnon, 2 Steph. Dig. 726; Lippincott v. Hubbard, 28 Pitts. L. J. 303; Burkhardt v. Burkhardt Co., 4 Ohio N. P. 3.'-)8; Listman Mill Co. v. Wm. Listman Mill Co., 88 Wis. r.U ; Prince Mfg. Co. V. Prince's Metallic Paint Co., 39 X. Y. S. R. 488 ; M.-nendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514; 32 L. Kd. 520; liege- man V. Hegeman, 8 Daly, 1 ; Sarra- zin V. W. R. Irby Cigar Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 024; 35C. C. A. 496; Allegretti V. .Allegretti Chocolate Cream Co., 177 111. 120; 53 X. K. Rep. 487; iiflirniing s. c. 70 111. App. 581; Snyder Mfg. Co. v. Snyder, 54 Ohio St. 80; 43 N. E. Rep. 325; WTiit- comb V. Converse, 110 Mass. 38; 20 Am. Rep. 311. Above text cited and ajjprnved. President Suspender Co. V. Maewillium, 233 Fed. Rep. >33, 437. 29 rUKl'ATOKY. §17 the name of the vojiddr, lliis ri^^lit hciii^ afTinncd in some casrs''' and iicKativi'd in otiici-s."- It would seem to l«.' the law that a territorial ri^ht to use a trademark can not be assif^ned ''-^ though in the case of the nanu' ol" a iieiiodical j)ublication the contrary rule has been aniiouneed.' ' The fact of a trademark confainin;,'' tlie name or initials of a formei" owner of a business w ill not disentitle an assignee of tlie business from its use. Ix'cause the jjroper name is treated as indieative of tlie business rather than the j)resent owner of the business.^^ But the courts of the United States are inclined to insist that the i)ublie be notified of the chan<,'e of ownership, and this is now the safer rule,'" particularly 71 — Banks v. Gibson, ,'J4 Beav. 560; Levy v. Walker, L. R. 10 Ch. 1). 403 ; VVebstiT v. Webster, 3 Swaiist. 490; Clark v. Leach, 32 Beav. 14; Bond v. Milbourn, 20 W. K. 107; Tussaud v. Tussaud, 38 W. R. 440; Phelan v. Collender, 13 X. Y. Sup. Ct. 244; Hoff v. Tar- rant & Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 163; af- firmed in Tarrant & Co. v. Hoff, 76 Fed. Rep. 9.")!); 22 C. C. A. 644; J. G. Mattingly Co. v. IMattingly, 96 Ky. 430. 72— Scott V. Rowland, 20 W. R. 208 ; Lewis v. Langdon, 7 Sim. 421 ; Turner v. Major, 3 Giff. 442 ; Dence v. Mason, 41 L. T. N. S. 573; Dickson v. McMaster, IS Tr. Jur. 202; Reeves v. Denicke, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 92; Howe v. Searing, 10 Abb. Pr. 204; Cox, 244; Petersen V. Ilumplirey, 4 Abb. Pr. 394; Cox, 212; Thynne v. Sliove, SO L. T. Jour. 84; Mayer v. Flanagan. 12 Tex. Civ. App. 405; Sherwood v. Andrews, 5 Am. L. Reg. X. S. 588; Seb. 263. 73— Snodgrass v. Wells, 11 :Mo. App. 590. 74— Estes V. Williams. 21 Fed. Rep. 189. 75 — Pepper v. Labrot, 8 Fed. Rep. 29; LePage Co. v. Russia Cement Co., 2 C. C. A. 555; 51 Fed. Rep. 941; Jennings v. Johnson, 37 Fed. Rep. 304; Frazer v. Frazer Luliricator Co., 121 111. 147; 13 X. K. Rep. 639; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245; 24 L. Ed. 832; Symonds v. Jones, 82 Me. 302; 8 L. R. A. 570; Filkins v. Blackman, 13 Blatchf. 440; Fed. Case No. 4780; Weed v. Peter- son, 12 Abb. Pr. X. S. 178; Young V. Jones, 3 Hughes, 274; Fed. Case Xo. 18,159; Fulton v. Sellers, 4 Brewst. 42; Weston v. Ketcham ( 1 ) , 39 X. Y. 54 ; Clark v. Ins. Co., 7 Mo. App. 71; Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583; 23 X. E. Rep. 213; Iloxie v. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592; Russia Cement Co. v. LePage, 147 Mass. 200; 17 X. E. Rep. 304; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. .540; 35 L. Ed. 247; Bultf V. Ingleheart Bros., 70 C. C. A. 76; 137 Fed. Rep. 492. 499. The fact that a trademark includes the name and portrait of the first owner does not render it unassignal)le to another. Ricliniond Xervine Co. v. Richmond, 159 V. S. 293. .302: 40 L. Ed. 155. 70 — Manhattan Med. Co. v. Wood, 108 U. S. 218; 27 L. Ed. 706; Hor- ton Mfg. Co. V. Horton Mfg. Co., 18 § 17] IIOI-KINS ON TRADK.MAKK.S. 30 whoro tlit^ trjulfiniiik is a mark uf special (|ualiti(\s, duo to suporior matfrial, pr«)i'osses. can' and skill cxorcisi'd l)y the orijrinator tluMfof. or the mark hearing his name "would, or at least niifrht. imply tlial his personal work »»r supervision was employed in the mannfaeture; and in swell eases it would he a fraud upon the jjuhlie if the trademark should he used hy other persons, and for this reason such a trademark would he held to he unassi^niahle. • • • ii,,t^ f„| the other liand, the usafjes of trade may he sueh that no such inferenec would naturally he drawn from the use of a trademark which con- tains a i)erson's name, and that all that purchasers would rea- sonahly understand is that {roods hearing: the trademark are of a certain standard, kind or (juality, or are made in a cer- tain manner, or after a certain formula, by jiersons who are carry injr on the same business that formerly was carried on hy the person whose name is on the trademark."'' In the sale of a business, then, the {reneral rule is tliat the traderaark.s con- nected with the business will pass to the i)urchaser without being specified in the l)ill of sale,'** and in case of a general assignment or l)ankiMi]>tey the trademarks also pass, to inure to the benefit of the creditors '•' The exception to each of Fr. r>21 ; IMllsI)ury v. Pillslmry- 040, 0.")2. A conveyance of "all of Washlnirn Flour Mills Co., 04 Fed. the Imsiiicss and assets" transfers R<-p. 841; 12 C. C. A. 432; Peoph- tlie trademark of that Imsiness V. Mcdins, 10 N. Y. Supp. 130; witliout speeial mention. R. .1. Lemk<' v. Diitz, 121 Wis. 102; OS INynolds T.ihaeeo Co. v. Allen Bros. N. \V. Rep. !»3(i. Tohacco Co.. l.")! Fed. Rep. 810. 823. 77 — Charh'H Alhn, .1., in Iloxic In a conveyance, the expression V. Chaney, 143 Mass. .'«!t2, 10 N. K. "trad«' ri;.'hts" will suirice to convey Itep. 713. tradenames used in the Imsinoss. 78 — Shipwrijiht v. ('lemtiits, IM II(rin;,'llalIMiir\ in Safe Co. v. W. R. .".00; Wilm.r v. Thomas, 74 llall's Safe Co.. 208 V. S. .'»."»4, .'iflO; Md. 48.".; 13 !.. H. A. 380; Scdis .'.2 L. Fd. 010. 020. Cigar Co. v. P(./o. 10 Colo. 388; 70— n.}:.man v. He^ri-man, 8 2.'» Am. .'^t. Rep. 270; Lau;;hman'H Daly, 1 ; lJo;.'ers v. Taintor, 07 Mass. Appeal. 128 Pa. I; 18 Atl. Rep. 41.".; 201; Warren v. Warnn Tiiread Co., "> ( \' \ .'•'•'• \|i.r"!in \ l;..i-iT«, 1.34 Mass. 247; Iludson w Oslu.rne, 31 I'HKFATOUV [§17 tliosc rules arises where the trademark depends upon the seeret processes or individual skill of its owner for its value."" Trademarks may, in connection witli the },'oodwill of tin; husiiu'ss whei-ewith they are eoinieeted, be transmitted hy be- quest.'' ' This naturally leads to the result that several persons may hy hecpiest (as they nuiy upon dissolution of a co-partner- ship) become j)ossessed of the rif,'ht to u.sc the same trademark. As Avhere a decedent, a watchmaker usinj? "J)ent, London" as a mark on watches which he manufactured at three several shojjs in London, be(pieathed the business of two of these shops to one person and the third shop to another. It appears to have been held here that each legatee had a several right to the use of the trademark.^- The rights of the partners in the use of the firm trademarks ui)on dissolution have been tlius defined by Judge Hughes: "Rights in trademark are analogous to rights in the good will of a i)artnershi|). In the absence of express stij)ulation at the timo of dissolution, each ])artner may go on and use the trademark of the firm."'*^ It is clear, however, that where a mark is a common design for the pur- :{!) L. J. Cli. 70; Cotton v. Gillanl, 44 L. J. Ch. 00; Ex parte Fosa, 2 DcG. & J. 2.30; Bury v. Bedford, 4 DeG. J. & S. 3.")2: Ex parte Youn-.', Seb. 5.37 ; Longman v. Tripp, 2 Boa. & P. X. R. G7 ; Hammond v. Bninkor, R. P. C. 301; Cartm.-ll, 142; Lippincott v. Iluhliard, 2S Pitts. L. J. 30.3; Bnrkliardt v. Burkhardt Co., 4 Ohio X. P. 3.")8; Batchollor v. Thomson, 80 Fed. Rep. S2— Dent v. Turpin, 2 J. & H. 1.30; 30 L. J. Ch. 40.-,; 7 Jur. N. S. 673; 4 L. T. X. S. 0.37; \V. II. .-)48. Mr. Cox ol)serve3, "Tliis case is to he taken as of an exceptional (liaract<-r; it is not in accord witli settled principles." Cox, Manual, 1!m;. S3 — Youny V. .Jones, Fed. Case Xo. 18,1.59 3 Huphes, 274; Price & Steuart, InO. And to the same 630; Sarrazin v. ^V. R. Irby Cigar effect, see Caswell v. Hazard, 121 Co., 3r, C. C. A. 400; 03 Fed. Rep. 624, 620. Tlu^ Bankruptcy Act of 1808, § 70a. provides that tiie trus- tee in bankruptcy siiall be vested by operation of law with the title of the bankrupt, as of the date he was adjudged a bankrupt, to all "interests in patents, patent rigiits, copyriglits. and trademarks." 80— /?c Swezey, 02 How. Pr. 21;'). 81— McLean v. Fleming, 00 V. S. 24.-,; 24 L. Ed. 832; Ihnver v. Dan- nenhofTer, 82 X'. Y. 490, 502. X. Y. 484; 24 X. E. Rep. 707; Haz- ard V. Caswell, 03 X. Y. 2.',0, 2r)2; Huwer v. DannenliolTer, 82 X. Y. 400, 502; Banks v. fJibson, 34 Beav. 566; .34 L. J. Cli. 501; 6 X. R. 373; 13 W. R. 1012; 11 Jur. X. S. 680; Sel). 248; Condy v. Mitchell, .37 L. T. X. S. 268; 37 L. T. N. .S- 700; 20 \V. R. 269; Seb. 561; Tay- lor V. Bothin, Fed. Case Xo. 13.780, 15 Off. Gaz. 908; Price & Steuart, 5 Sawy. 584; Wright v. Simpson, 1G5. In this connection Mr. Justice §17 IIOl'KINS 0\ TKADKM AUKS. 32 pose of a foiiiiiiou aih (Mil lire used hy scxoral iiulcjUMitliMlt ileulers or inaimiacturt'is in a joint •'iilcrprisc, a iiiaik be- lunging to m'itlicr iiidividiially. but ri'i)rosenting the enter- prise of ull loiiccriM'd. for tin* purposes of their joint adven- ture, the tracU'Uiark ran be useil oidy so b)iijr as all the parties remain interested in the enterprise; when it terniinates the funetion and lif*- of the ti-adeniarli also terniinati'.*' ' If the business and {rood will of a i)ai'tnersliip ai'e sold upon dis- solution tlie trademark {^oes with the other assets.^" Another question is j^resented Avhere one j)artner retires from the firm, if the retirin<; partner re-en{jages in business and eontinues to use the trademark, it has been lield that tiiat faet, even if the mark is applied by him to a spiirious artiele. is evidence of his intention to retain his interest in the trademark.*^" If upon dissolution one partner takes the whole business by agree- ment, the valuation of the retiring? partner's interest must in- elude his interest in the trademarks of the partnership, which jiass with the froodwill.'*^ Kradlry wiid: "In Imldiii;,' tliiit it is in'ct'ssary to tin- valitlity of a tradi-mark tliat tin- olaimant of it must ln' t>ntitli'(l to an cxilusivc ri^iht to it, or proptTty in it, we do not mean to say tliat it may not btdong to more than one per- son, to be enjoyed jointly or sever- ally. Copartners, upon a dissolu- tion of j)artner8liip, may stipulate that eacli of them may use the trademarks of the firm, and tlwro may he many otlier cases of joint and wveral owm-rship; hut siieli eo- ownerb will to;^etlH'r he entitled to the exclusive use of the trademark, and jterhapH each of them will he entitled to such exclusive use as to all other persons exci-pt their as- wjciates in ownership." New York Cement Co. v. Coplay Cemi-nt Co., 4.'. Fed. Rep. 212; to tlie same eflTect. Lepou V. Kottler, KtO N. Y. Supp. 770. H4~.ffe Jones. fiM L. T. 1, Curt mell, )Hl); Hohinnon v. I'iiilav. and Ward V. Tvohinson. L. M. Ch. D. ■IS7; :i!t I.. T. :WH; 27 \V. 11. 2!M; Cartmell, 29."). Tliese cases arose between mereliants in Manchester and corresponding,' houses in Man- illa and Ran;.'ooii. The trademarks were compt)site marks, eontainin;^ crests, names of the individuals \\Titt»-n in Chinese characters, coatti (if arms, and other j>ersonal intlicia of the jiarties interested. 8.") — Armistead v. HIaekwell. 1 ()(T. Oaz. (iO:}; Sel). :i!l'.l; 15o},'ers V. Taintor. !t7 Mass. 201; Sel). 283; Hradhury v. Dickens. 27 Ih-av. fiS; 2.S L. .1. Ch. (5({7; :i.T L. T. r)4 ; Seb. 17.'{; Hanks v. Cibson, 34 Bcav. .".tiC; 11 .lur. N. S. U80; 34 L. J. ( h. .V.n ; l.t W. K. I(tl2; U N. R. 27.{. H(5— \Vri;.dit v. Simpson. 1.") Off. Caz. )KIS: Price 4 Steuart. IH"). 87 — Hanks v. riibson. ."U Heav. .-.(I(t; 11 .lur. N. S. (ISO; :<» K. .r. Cli. .V.ll : 12 W. K. 1012 ; (i N. H. lil'.i; Sel). 218; Ca^'c v. Canada Pub. i}3 riCKKATOHV. [§17 Tradomiirks upon tlie death of llioir owuor pass with his other jx'i'sonalty to liis jxTsoiial rc|)rcseiitativ('s.'''' There shouhl, (if <'()iirse, l)e a coiivcn aiicf ol' the drccdcMt "s title by adiniiiisl i-at ion ; and when-, as in lloniuhn r. Llaij'l; tliere is IK) adiiiiiiistration, and KMA1{KS. 34 ever, that concodiiif; this symbol to have been a valid trade- mark in tlio hands of .li>ssi» Darliiifjtoii (prandfatlicr of com- plaiiuiMts). or even of flared (his son), that upon tlir death of the latter it ceased to be the jtrdpfrly (»f any one, and tluit its nse by several members of the family of the latter destroyed its distinctive features and left it open t(» the i)id)lie to ajtpro priate it. We can not assent to this pi-uposition." '•" It mi^rht be supr^rested that in eases of this character (i. c, where no administration is had upon the estate of a deceased owner of a trademark) its nse by relatives in a similar bnsiness is practically an adoption , note 8. •)2— Weston v. Ketcham (2), SI How. Pr. 4r)r»; Filkins v. Rlackman, V.\ Blatchf. 440. 44(5; Fed. Case No. •',7S(i; Sohier v. .lohnson. 111 Mass. 2:{S, 242; llury v. Hedford, 4 DeO. .T. & S. .1.V2-H7I; Con.ly v. Mileli.-U. :t7 L. T. N. S. 2(;H; Moore V. HawHon, ISf) Mass. 204; 70 N. E. i:ep. (;4. 11.}— Kidd v. Johnson. 100 U. S. (117, Ol'»; 2.') L. Kd. 7, 35 I'RPJ^ATORY. [§17 seem from this decision, then, tliat the partner who oripinully owns the mark may by agreement jjermit the use of the trade- nuu'k by tlie firm during its existence, reserving the title to the trademark 1(» himself in the event of dissolution. In a recent case it has been hold that "When a trademark or tradename is owned by oi\r. \\\\(i enters into a partnershij) with another for the manufacture of the article designated, the title of the trademark does not pass to the i)artnership except by exi)ress agreement.""* A like ruling has been made as to the trademark of one of the incorjjorators of a corporation."-'' In each case the title of the mark is a ques- tion of fact, and title to ])ersonalty usually follows posses- sion. Use by a partnership is prima facie evidence of owner- ship by the partnership. The federal supreme court has held that when a i)artner retires from a fiim, assenting to or acquiescing in the reten- tion by the other j)artners of the old place of business and the future conduct of the business by them under tiie old name, the goodwill (including the title to the firm's trade- marks) remains with the latter as a matter of course.'*'"' It is imi)()rtant to note, in considering the assignability of trademarks, the doctrine first announced hy .Judge Shipman, that "The right to use a trademark can not be so enjoyed by an assignee that he shall liave the right to affix the mark to goods differing in character or species from the article to which it was originally attached.""" And where the trade- mark involved the use of the assignor's name, it was said: "Where an individual parts with a right to the use of his own name in any given connection, the courts should rot extend the contract by which he does so beyond its necec.";ary scope. It eertaiidy will not be held that a man has tied himself up so as to prevent the use of his own name any further tlian the clear terms of the agreement show his intention to do so."'*^ 94 — Kirkpatrick, J., in Grcacen Xo. 4,780. This rule is apain laid V. Bell, 115 Fed. Rep. S/iS, 5'A. down in Chattanoopa Medicine Co. 95— Cutter v. Giidebrod Bros. Co. v. Thedford ( 1 ) , 49 Fed. Rep. 949, (2), 61 X. Y. Supp. 225. 952; Chattanoopa Medicine Co. v. 96— IMenendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. Thedford (2), 58 Fed. Rep. 347. 514, 522; .32 L. Ed. 52(>. 98 — Xewman, J., in Chattanoopa 97_Filkin3 V. Blackman, 13 Medicine Co. v. Thedford (2), 58 Blatchf. 440, 444; Fed. Case Fed. Rep. 347, 349; reversed upon §17] llOI'KINS ON TKMtKM.VKKS. 36 One who lias jissij,'iit'il citlicr liis t raiiciiiark ••'■' or tfatlc- naiue • ^vill l)o cnjoiiu'd from a^raiii usiiij; tlu" mark, or iiaiuc liiinsolf; if \\c makes such an assi;:imifiit to a »'or)»orati()ii with a rt'Vfi'sioii to liiiii if llu' corpoi-at ion ccast's to exist, lie ran not niaki' a valid assi^'inncnt of the mark to another dur- inj; the lifi' of the corporal ion. - The assijjnee of a tradenuirk iloes not, mei-cly hy virtue of the assijriunent, obtain a i-i^dit to enjoin infrin^'ers 'f the mark. He must show that he has actually a])plied it, com- mercially, to goods of the class for which it is claimed as a trademark.-' While, as we have seen, a tratlemark is assignable only in connection \\\{\\ the goodwill of the business in which it is used, it does not follow that both must be conveyed by the same instrument or at the same time ; and under the English Patents, Trademarks and Copyright Act of 1883 it has been lield that the registration of an assignment of a trademark need not be contemporaneous with the assignment of the goodwill.^ It is i)()ssible that the originator of a manufac- turing business and the person who i)urchases that business may each thereafter liave a right to the limited use of the tradename and trademark used in connection with that busi- ness.^ Where such a state of facts arises, either the vendor or jnirchaser can assign his right to the use of the tradename and trademark, and cither will be enjoined U])on the application of the other from using the words "only genuine" in connection with the name or mark.'' till- {.'round of unfair competition \>\ Filkins v. Blackman. \.\ lUatclif. defendants, in Cliattanoo^ia Mt-di- 440, 44r>; I'\-d. Case .\o. 4.7S(i. fine Co. v. Tli.dford, 14 (". V. A. A— In re \\clk-omr, L. R. 32 Ch. 101; 60 Fed. Kc].. '.44. D. 21:}; :\ R. \\ V. 7C>; '>'. L. .1. Ch. 09— Hury v. R.-dford. 4 D.C -F :.42; :.4 L. T. 4!»:{ ; :M W. R. 4r>.3; & S. :i.'.2; Rurkliardt v. Rurkiuirdt Cartni.-ll. ;{42. Co., 4 Ohio N. 1*. :jr)8. r>— Fisli Bros. W a^-on Co. v. La 1 — Churton v. I)ou;,'laH, .Johnson Relic \Va;,'on Works, 82 Wis. 546; (Enjj. ), 174. I'i^h RroH. Wajjon Co. v. Fish Bros. 2_IVtrolia Mf};. <'o. v. R.H A ^U^i. Co.. S7 Fed. Rep. 201; af- Ro^art Soaji Co., 07 Fed. Itcji. 7H1. firni<-d. Jt.". \-\-i\. Kcp. I.".7 : ."17 C. C. 784. A. \M\. .1— Walton V. Crowl-y, Fid. Cane (5 — Finli Rron. \\ a^'on Co. v. Fish No. 17,i:<:C. :i Rlatchf. 4«o. 44H; RroH. Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. Rep. 203. 37 4'Ki:fat<)Ky. [§ 17 In a case where ;i ttjidcinark was used by a manufacturer in En^'land and also by a lirni in tlio I'nitod States in which In; was a partner, the use of the trach'inark havin<; he^Min in b(ith j)hi('es ahonl the same tiiiic. iiiid if liaviii^ h<'iM»iMc a distinctive mark, i(h'ntifyiiif: tlie artieh* mannl'aeturcd in the I'nited States, tin* Enj^lish maniifactiii'ei' retired fr-om the AnuM'iean honse. Upon liis .snhs(M|n<'iit ly attempt iiijr to use it in a separate busi- ness of the same kind in this couidry, it was hehl that his suc- cessors in the old firm had. upon his retirement, succeeded to the exclusive ri.30. Metallic Paint Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 8 — Saxlchner v. Eisner & Men- 24n; Cox, Manual, 721. delson Co. (2), 91 Fed. Rep. ri.36; 10— Hill v. Lockwood. 32 Fed. Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Rep. 389. Co. (3), 170 U. S. 1!>, 36; 4,') L. 11— Armstrong' v. Kleinhaus, S2 Ed. 60. Ky. .•?()3. 12— Atlantic Millinp Co. v. Rob- inson, 20 Fed. Rep. 217. § IS] irOPKINS ON TltADK.MAKKS 38 the profits iliu' liini iiikUt the contraft, ami tlit^ (loffiulaut was allowed (lalua^'l^s for tlu« bivarh of the roiitrart. Tlic validity of tlu' assijfHineiit appoars not to have Ix-cii (|ii»'stioiu'd.'-' Thero is an exi'optiou to the jrciifral nilr that a trademark can not be assifrned save in connet'tion with a business; where the mark is associated with the i)rodn('t of a secret j)rocess, the mark necessarily «roes Avitli an assijriniuMit of the process.'* Thus the Court of Ajipeals of New York. si)eakinpr throufjh O'Brien. J., lias said, "There are doubtless some trademarks that consist of words that identify an article ]>roduced by some secret process and without the use of wliich the article could not be described. Tn other words the luime used may be inherent in the article itself and is not used as in this case to distinfruish one cijrar from another. The celebrated cordial, which is in use the world over, known as 'Chartreuse' is a sample of a trademark, the bare assill. 1"»') F.-d. Krp. (i:J!». 14 — Tuttli' V. Blow, 17t> Mo. l.'.S, 17— Kaliii v. W. .\. Cain.-s i Co., 173; Falk v. Am.Tifan WVkI ImlicH Itil r.; 8S C. C. A. 437; Trading Co.. 1«0 N. Y. 44r); iJald- ./. W. A. Caiii.-H * Co. v. Rock win V. Von MiiluToux. 25 N. Y. Spring DiHt. ( u.. Ml C. C A. 287; Supp. K->7, «.'.1>. 22(1 Fed. H.-ji. .'..U. l."". — Falk V. AriKricim W i-nt In- di.H Tradinj,' Co., IKU .\. Y. 445. 39 I'REFAT(JRV. [§ li^ iug that tlio goods to which it is allixcd uro maimfacturcd at tlie same phice and arc of tlie same character as those to which the mark was attached hy its ()rif,Mnal desif^Mier. "''' This nih- has been applied to brands consistin'? in whoh* or in j)art of proper names. Thns, in the leadin},' case, the brand was "S. X. Pike's Majinolia Whiskey,"'" and in another case the brands ■were "J. G. IMattinjjIy & Sons, Standard lioui-bon" ;ind "J. U. Mattinfjfly & Sons, Pnre Rye."-" §19. Unfair competition.^! n 1877, the American writer, ]\Ir. Charles E. Coddin^'toii, in his excellent digest of trade- mark cases, remarked that "The interference of courts of equity, instead of ])ein«ir founded ujion the theory of protection to the owner of tradenuirks, is now sui)ported mainly to ]jre- vent frauds upon the public. 21 If the use of any words, numer- als or symbols is adopted for the purpose of defrauding the public, the courts will interfere to protect the i)ublic from such .fraudulent intent, even though the person asking the inter- vention of the court may not have the exclusive right to the use of these words, mimerals or symbols. "22 jjp added that this rule was fidly supported by four cases, two English and two American, which he cited. ^'^ Since that time, the recogni- tion of the doctrine so expressed has grown steadily and cer- tainly, so that it now demands treatment as a specific branch 18— Mr. Justice Field in Kidd v. 22— Coddinpton, Dipest, § 30. Johnson, 100 V. S. 017; 2rt L. Ed. 23—1809. Lee v. Haley, 21 L. T. 709. X. S. .'-,46; 18 W. R. 181; L. R. 5 19— Kidd V. Johnson, 100 U. S. Cli. 155; 39 L. J. Ch. 284; 22 L. 617; 25 L. Ed. 769. T. X. S. 251; 18 W. R. 242; Seh. 20— J. G. Mattinply Co. v. Mat-' 325. lingly, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1; 27 S. W. 1872. Wotlierapoon v. Curie, 22 Rep. 985; J. G. Mattin|,'ly Co. v. E. T. X. S. 200; 18 W. R. 562; 42 IMattingly, 90 Ky. 4:50; 31 S. W. L. J. Ch. 130; 23 L. T. X. S. 443; R«^P- 279. 18 W. R. 942; L. R. 5 H. L. 508; 42 21 — The writer erred in ascrihinp E. J. Ch. 130; 27 E. T. X. S. 393; this as the only reason. The pre- Seh. 329. vention of fraud upon the person 1S72. X^ewman v. Alvord, 49 ■whose poods are pirated is equally Barl>. 588; 35 How. Pr. 108; Cox, important and copent. Humplirey's 404; 51 X. Y. 189; 10 Am. Rep. Specific iled. Co. v. Wenz, 14 Fed. 588; Scb. 282. Rep. 250; Skinner v. Oakes, 10 Mo. " 1877. Kinney v. Basch, Seb. 542. App. 45. §20] HOl'KlNy ON TK\I)1;M \KKS. 40 of tlie law. separate, apart t'lMiu. but iiicliuliii;r the iiarrowri* uiul strictly tofhiiii-al law of ti-adfiiiai-ks.-' "'I'lu' tciKU'iii-y of tlie courts at tho i)resont time seems to be to rcstriel the scope of the law applieable to tcehnieal trademarks, and to extend its sc()|)e in eases of unfair competition. "-•'• §20. Historical. — In 1742, in lilmwliard v. Hill, a decision of no authority and of no particular use cxeei)t to illustrate the slow prowth of the law of trademarks, Lord Ilardwicke observed, referrinp to Southern v. Ifou;^'^ "It was itot the single act of niakinpr use of the mark that was sufficient to maintain the action, but doinp it with a fraudulent desile of the law may be very plaiidy stated, and that is. that nctbody has any rieated in various ])hraseology by all the English courts within whose jurisdiction trademark and analogous cases have come. It is more diflRcult to trace the growth of this doctrine in the American decisions, rhancellor Randford in 1825, in an action concerning the right to the name of a i)criodical, observed, "The injury for which redress is given • • • results from the imjiosture jiracticed upon the customers of an existing establishment, or upon the public."-"' so recog- nizing the rule which Mi*. Toddington failed to recognize. 24 — "Tin- law of unfair cdmiM-ti- 2(\ — Smitlu-ni \. IInu. l*iij)hnm, tion in well Kcttlcd. It in only tli<- Ml; Cn.. .Ia<-. 171: J 15-. 11.'. '2S; appliration of that law t<» iiidivid- Sih. 1. ual oatM'H wliicli ri-'iiiin-H <- 27 — lUaiu-liard v. Hill, 2 Atk. Hion." LacomtM-, .F.. in W'altir IS4; S«'l>. 2. UakiT 4 Co. V. SandcrH, SO K<-d. 2S— Ilcddaway v. Raidiam, L. H. K«-p. 8K{», HJH ; 20 ('. C. A. 22(1. (IsiMli Aj.pral CawH. l!H>-2(t4. 2.'» — liakt-r, J., in Church 4 20— .Snowdcn v. Noah, HopkiiiH* Dwijjlit Co. V. HuBB, m> Fed. Rep. Ch. K. 347; Cox, 1; Sth. 41. 270-278. 41 riiKivvTtjKv. [§20 Twelve years later, in ^rassadmsctts, it was said that "Im- position, falsehood and fraud, on tlie part of the defendant, in passing ofl' his own medicines as those of the plaintiff, would he a }>:r()und of action."'"' In 1840 Chancelloi- Walwortii was i)rescntcd ^\ ith an ap])lica- tion for an injuticl ion to restrain the use of the words "New Era" as the name of u n(>wspa|)er, the eomi)lainant beinpj the j)roi)rietor of a rival periodical denominated "Democratic Ile- jmblican New Era." He denied the application, and in the course of his opinion said: "The allcfjation in the complain- ant's bill of complaint is that the defendant has assumed the name of the complainant's newspaper for the fraudulent pur- pose of imjiosinpr ujion the public, and supplanting him in the goodwill of his established ])apcr, by simulating the name and dress thereof; with the intent to cause it to be understood, and believed by the communitj'', that the defendant's news- paper was the same as the complainant's, and thereby to in- jure the circulation of the latter. If this were in fact so, I should have no difficulty in making this order absolute. For although the business of jiublishing newspapers ought, in a free country, to be always open to the most unlimited com- petition, fraud and deception certainly are not essential to the most perfect freedom of the press. * * * ^s the names of party newspapers, in these days, have no necessary con- nection with the principles which they advocate, and are manu- factured as readily as the upav names if not the new principles of political parties, there could be very little excuse for the editor of a newspaper who should adopt the precise name and dress of an old established paper, which would be likely to interfere with the goodwill of the latter by actually deceiving its patrons." ^i Not until 1888 did the United States supreme court give distinct recognition to the law of unfair competition.^- and 30 — Thomson v. Winclicstor, lit Hd. f).'}.'); Co.x, Manual, 70"). In Pick. 214; Sel). of). this case Mr. Justice Field said 31— Bell V. Locke, 8 Paij,'.-, 7.>; (128 U. S. at p. 604), "The Cox, 11; Sol). (').'). case at bar can not be sus- 32 — Goodyear India Rubber tained as one to restrain unfair Glove Mffi. Co. V. Goodyear Rub- trade. Relief in such cases is bcr Co., 12S r. S. 598; 32 L. jrranted only where the defendant, §20] IIOI'KINS ON TKADK.MAKKS. 42 three years later Mr. t'hiof Justice Fuller aiiiiouiu'od the ilm-- trine clearly and uneciuivocally, in these terms: "Tlie juris diction to restrain the use of a trademark rests ujjon tiie grounds of the i»laintilT's jiroperty in it, and of the ilefendant's unlawful use thereof. If the absolute right belonged to plain- tiff, then, if an infringement Averc clearly shown, the fraudulent intent would be inferred, and, if allowed to bf rebutted in exemption of damages, the further violation of the right of property would lu^vertheless be restrained. It seems, however, to be conteiuled tluit jilaintiff was entitled at least to an in- junction, upon tlie ]iriiifiples ap|)liciiltl(' to eases analogous to trademarks; that is to say, on the ground of fraud on the public and on the ])laintiff, ]ierpetrated by defendant by in- tentionally and fraudulently selling its goods as those of the jilaintiff. l^idoubtedly an nufair and fraudulent competition against the business of the i)laiiitiff — conduct with tlie intent, on the part of the defendant, to avail itself of the reputation of the plaintiff to ]ia]m off its goods as plaintiff's — would, in a proper case, constitute ground for relief."-''' With this decision the doctrine of unfair competition may be regarded as being fiiuilly established in the Ignited States; and as based not only on fraud on the i)ublic, but on the plaintiff.^^ liy liis mark, si^ms, lahcls, or in other ways, rcprt-sents to tlu> i)uli- lic tliat tin- ^'oods sold l)y him are tiios*' mamifactiircd or j>roduo«'d l)y the phiiiitiir, thus j)almin<,' otT Ilia poods for those of a diflVront manufacturor, to the injury of the phiintifT." Citing McLean v. Fh-m- inp, «« U. S. 245; 24 L. Kd. 828; Sawyer v. Horn, 1 Fed. Uep. 24; 4 HupheH, 2.'{!t; I'erry v. Tniefit. C Beavun,, 6*5; Croft v. Day, 7 Heavan, H4. Indeed, McLean v. Fhminp may Ih- properly regarded as the firrt caw in which the federal Hiipreme court made any m<'ntion of the dfK'trine. Tliis wntenee occurs -in the opinion: "Nor is it necessary, in order to ^rive a ri;;ht to an in- junction, tliat a s|)eciric trademark should lie infrin^'ed; hut it is suffi- cient that there was an attempt on the part of the resfiondent to palm off his poods as the poods of the complainant." McLean v. Fleminp, 1)6 U. S. 245; 24 L. ed. 828. 33— Lawrence Mfp. Co. v. Ten- n.'ssee Mfp. Co.. LJS U. S. .'»37; 34 L. Kd. 1)07; Cox. ^^anlull, 720. 34— "The law relatinp to this suhject is wi'll understood. Xo man has a ripht to use nann-s. symhols, sipns or marks whidi are intended, or calculated, to repre- sent that his husiness is tluit <>r another. No man should in this way i)c permitted to appro|»riate 43 rilEFATORY. [§20 the fruits of nnotlior'fl iiKhintry, or impoHc liis goodH iijx)!! tlw pultlic by inducing it to hclicvp tliat tlicy are tlie goodB of some one else. If A presents his goods in such a way tliat a customer who ia ac- quainted with the goods of B and intendn to purcliuse tliem is in- dueed to taki' tlie goods of A in- stead, lielieving them to hv. tlu! goods of B, A is guilty of a fraud which deceives tlie public and in- jures his competitor. Where the goods of a manufacturer have be- come popular not only because of their intrinsic wortli, but also by reason of the ingi-nious, attractive and persistent manner in which they have been advertised, tlie goodwill thus created is entitled to protection. The money invested in advertising is as much a part of the business as if invested in build- ings, or machinery, and a rival in business has no more right to use the one than the other — no more right to use the machinery by which the goods are placed on tlie market than tlie machinery which originally created them. No one should be permitted to step in at the eleventh hour and appropriate advantages resulting from years of toil on the part of another." "The action is based upon decep- tion, unfairness and fraud, and when these are established the court should not hesitate to act. Fraud should be clearly proved; it should not be inferred from re- mote and trivial similarities. Ju- dicial paternalism should be avoid- ed; tiiere should be no ofTicious meddling by the court with the pet- tj- details of trade; but, on the other hand, its process should be promptly used to prevent an hon- est buflinesn from being destroyed or invaded by diHlioiiest means." Coxe, .1., in llilson Co. v. Foster, 80 Fed. Rej). H{)(5-8!)7. "The fundamental rule is that one man has no right to put ofl iiis goods for sale as tlie goods of a rival trader; and he can not, tlierefore (in the language of Lord Laiigdale in the ease of Perry v. Truefit, Beavan, (5(i-73), 'be al- lowed to use names, marks, letters or other indicia by which he may induce purchasers to believe that the goods which he is selling are the manufacture of another per- son.' " Lord Kingsdown in Leath- er Cloth Co. (Ltd.) v. American Leather Cloth Co. (Ltd.), 11 H. L. C. 358; followed in Johnston v. Orr-Ewing, 7 App. Cas. 219-220. "The courts have evolved out of the technical law of trademarks a just doctrine, well founded, and known as the law of unfair trade, the underlying principle of which is not only sound and broad but eminently more concerned with tiie justice of the cause than was our ancient jurisprudence with refer- ence to infringements of the trade- mark." Xortoni, J., in Grocer's Journal V. .Midland Pub. Co., 127 Mo. App. 36(); 105 S. W. Rep. 312; quoted with approval, IMcGrew Coal Co. v. Mcncfee, 162 Mo. App. 209; 144 S. W. Rep. 869. "The gradual but progressive ju- dicial development of the doctrine of unfair competition in trade has shed lustre on that branch of our ju- risprudence as an embodiment, to a marked degree, of the principles or high business morality, involv- ing the nicest discrimination be- tween those things which may, §20] HOPKINS ON* TR.\nEMARKS. 44 It has been hold in somo oases that in casos of uiifaii* com- j>ctiti()n tho privato rij;ht of action is ii(»t based upon fraud or imposition upon tho i»uhlio. hut is niaintainod soh'ly for tlie protection of tho |)roporty rijjhts of ooniphiinant.'-' unci thus*' \vlii«h iiiay not. I>«' dom' in tin* ei»ur!*«> of lioiutralilc rivulry in laisini'Hs. T\nn »l««'triiii' rt'8t« (in titc linmd proptisition iluit tHjuity will not jM-rmit imy om* to palm olT lii» p to inable «)f deceiving the piiblic as to tlie origin, manu- facture — Anu-rican Washboard Co. v. Saginaw Mfg. Co.. 1()3 Fed. Rep. 281; 43 C. C. A. 2X1 ; M L. K. A. 45 1'ki;fat(jkv. [§21 §21. Property right as the basis of the action for unfair competition. — in view of tlie lu-l^uloiis conditidn of Die Aincr- ii-aii cases as to the nature of the ri^lit which is at the basis of the action for unfair competition in trade, it may be well to set out liere tlie Eutrlish doctrine. That doctrine has been rather slowly evolved, but it is now to be considered as es- tablished by the oi)ini()n from which the followin^^ is an extract : "The proposition that no one has a right to represent his goods as the goods of somebody else must, I think, as has been assumed in this case, involve as a corollary the further ])ro])osition. that no one, Avho has in his hands the goods of another of a particular class or quality, has a right to rep- resent these goods to be the goods of that other of a different quality or belonging to a different class. Possibly, therefore, the principle ought to be restated as follows: — A can not, without infringing the rights of "R, represent goods which are not B's goods or B's goods of a particular class or quality to be B's goods or B's goods of that particular class or quality. The Avrong for which relief is sought in a ])assing-off action consists in every case of a representation of this nature. "The basis of a passing-off action being a false representa- tion by the defendant, it must be proved in each case as a fact that the false representation was made. It may, of course, have been made in express words, but cases of ex- press misrepresentation of this sort are rare. The more com- mon case is, where the representation is implied in the use or imitation of a mark, tradename, or get-up with which the goods of another are associated in the minds of the public, or of a particular class of the public. In such cases the point to be decided is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the use by the defendant in connection with the goods of the mark, name, or get-up in question impliedly represents such goods to be the goods of the plaintiff, or the goods of the plaintiff of a particular class or quality, or, as it is sometimes put, whether the defendant's use of such mark, eotl; Slielloy V. Sporry, 121 Mo. IT)") Mo. App. 412; 135 S. W. Rep. App. 429; 99 S. W. Rep. 488; A. J. 503. Reach Co. v. Simmons Hdw. Co., §21] irjPKlNS ON rUADKMAKKS. 46 name or pet-up is cnloulnted to deceive. It would, however, be im])ossihlo to pnumerato or classify all the possible ways in wiiich a man may nuiko the false representation relied on. "There appears to be considerable diversity of opinion as to the nature of the ripht, the invasion of which is the sub- ject of what are known as passinpr-ofT actions. The more general oiiinimi nj^ponrs to bo that the ripht is a ripbt of ]>roperty. This view naturally demands an answer to the question — jiroj^crty in what' Some authorities say property in the mark, name, or pet-up improperly used by the de- fendant. Others say, ])roperty in the business or u\ Tnrk.T, in Spalding & BroB. v. Gamagc« (Ltd.), n2 R. T. C. 2S4, IIouiM- of IxirdH, inir>. 47 i'KKi'\T(»i{v. [§ 22 § 22. Unfair competition distinguished from trademark in- fringement. It can liai'dly \)c (loiiljtcd that at its iiic('j)tion the doctrine of inilair (Mimpetition was devised to protect the public, I'athcr tiiaii to rccoj^iiizc any vested right in the complainant. lie liad adopted a t,'eo^'raphical name, a generic term, or woi-ds otlicfwisc juihlici juris, to desitrnate his wares. Perhaps he had no device, synil)ol oi- iiiai-k whatsoever, ])ut relied upon the shai)e, form or color of his packa^^es. He had, at all events, none of those methods of distinguishing his goods from those of other nu'rchants which the law recognizes as a right of ])roiierty and denominates "trademark." Yet his goods had a fixed cpiality and were sought for by the public. AVhen his comj)etitor endeavored to ])alm off other goods as his uj)oii the ])ublic, the chancellor would say as Lord Lang- dale said: "My decision does not dejjend on any i)eculiar or exclusive right the plaintiffs have to use the name of Day & jNIartin, but upon the fact of the defendant using those names in connection with certain circumstances, and in a manner cal- culated to mislead the public, and to enable the defendant to obtain, at the expense of l^ay's estate, a benefit for himself, to which he is not in fair aiul honest dealing entitled. "^^ The true theory of unfair competition has not always been as clearly stated by the courts as it should be. One line of decisions bases this doctrine and the right to injunctive re- lief ui)on the protection of the public from fraud. On the other hand, Judge Thayer has stated that relief is granted "To restrain the defendants from perpetrating a fraud which injures the complainant's business, and occasions him a pecuni- ary loss." 3" ' It is very clear that equity intervenes in the protection from fraud of both the complainant whose business is or may be injured by the unfair and fraudulent competition, and the }iublic who are the consumers of his merchandise.^'* 36 — Croft v. Day, 7 Boav. 84; S. .-)!)S ; ;{2 L. Ed. .">;{.->•. Cox, Manual. Seb. 76. TO."). And to tlie same i ffect set* 37— Carson v. Ury, 30 Ynl K.-p. I'i.-ro. v. Cuittard, 68 Cal. 68, 71. 777; Cox, Manual, 709; following' 38 — Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Ten- Goodyear India Rubber Glove :Mfg. nesseo Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537; 34 Co. V. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. L. Ed. 097. § 22] noi'KINS ox TKAOKMARKS. 48 In it sfnso it is not exact to separate the doctrines of trade- mark iMfriiij?emeiit and unfair conipctition.'''-* The underlyinjj: doctrine is the same — the control of rrami, ^'icat or petty, by the intervention of eciuity; '" and yet, without a dear under- standing; of the (h)ctrines of unfair comj)etition, it is impos- sible to read intellitrcntly the tradename eases whicli have so long been treated either as Ixinf; " trademark " cases, or cases "analopous to" trademark cases. We have discussed else- where the use of jiroper names as trademarks, aiul from an examination of tlu^ cases tlie careful stndcnl will conclude that jiroper nanu^s are not trademarks, and tiiat there shoidd not be such a tliiufr as a teclmical tradeiuune. A name whicli is not a trademark is jiot entitled to prot(M'tion as a trademark.'*' It is only entitled to protection when it is fraudulently used by another. Thus, in the case of "Dent, Tjondon,""*- which we have before referred to. Dent is a proper lunue aiul London a frenrrraphical word. They are entitled to ])rotcction aprainst fraudulent use, but only for the same reasons aiul in the same sense that the size, shape, color and dcsi^'u of labels or pack- ages are entitled to j^rotection ajrainst fraudulent use. This is true of many cases which have been decided by the courts as trademark cases. 39 — See nott- to Scliciicr v. ^fllll.'r, 20 C. C. A. IC.l. 40 — Unfair competition is essen- tially fraudulent and therefore pe- culiarly within the jurisdiction of •Hjuity. Morrirt v. Alstedter, 1")('> N. "^ Y. S. 110.3. 41 — "After a careful connidera- tion of the various caws hearinj^ on the Huhject, the concluHion was reached in Draper v. Skerrett, 110 Tt'd. Rep. 200, that, to justify a court of jHjuity in interfering,' in an allep'd case of unfair eomprtitioii, there must he Hom<-tiiinj; more than the mere duj>lication !>> the one party of the other's (rude- name, and that tliis was to he found in the di'ceptive uw of imi- tative metiiods of Fed. Kej.. ;uo. 42— Dent V. Turpin. ao L. .?. Ch. 4!i:. ; Seh. 100; Autr. j.. .'U . 49 I'KKFATOHV. [f--^ It should be c'loarly uiulcistood, tlicn, that tlic hnv of irado- marks is merely a subdivision of the law of unfair eompeti- tion ; and that the broader and more eomprchensive doctrines of the latter have been evolved to restrain fraudulent com- petition in all its finises of misrepresentation of identity. In the huijruafro of the Supreme Toiirt of Wisconsin, "unfair com- petition ill trade is not confined to the imitation of a trade- mark, but takes as many forms as the ingenuity of man can devise. Tt may consider the imitation of a sifrn, a tradename, a label, a Avra|»p('i-. a jiackajre, or almost any other imitation ])y a business rival of some distln4.'?, 07 X. W. Rep. of the sharp eompetitors for tlie 380. prize of ptihlic favor, and insists 44 — This l)ranch of the law is a that it shall be won only hy fair most interesting illustration of the trade." R. Heinisoh's Sons Co. v. unlimited adaptability of equity to Boker. 80 Fed. Rep. 7fi"). 768. cope with fraud in every form. 4.5 — Sinfjleton v. Bolton, 3 Doug. Judge Townsend has accurately ob- 20.T : Cox, 024 ; Seb. 4. § 22] noi'KiN's ON lu- APi.M \uKs. 50 place, under the sunie sijjn or iiaine, the i)nrty plvlnpr liimself out as the same perst)ii. " '"■ It was by analofjous reasoning that the same learned jii»l<:(', six years later, enjoined the piracy of Lord Hyron's nanif, ii|)|>li('d In pocins not of liis composition.^" In IS.'JG Lord LanjjdaK* cMJoiiifd ;i (K-fiMulant Ironi iisin}^ omnibuses ])ainted like the j^laintifF's. and driven and managed by servants dressed in livery lilrv- ants.^"* So that the doctrine was old when Mr. .Justice Clifford said from the bench of the federal supreme court, "Xnr is it neces- sary, in order to give a rigiit to an iujunetion, that a sjiecific trademark shoidd l)e infringed: l)ut it is sufficient that the court is satisfied tliat there was an attempt on the i)art of the respondent to jialm off his goods as the goods of tlie com- j>lainant." ''• The whole question of fairness in trade is ]>eculiarly within the jirovinee of ecjuitable jurisdiction; trademark infringement is but one form of unfair competition. I'nfair competition is the equivalent term for the ''passing ofT" of the English""* and the *' Concurrence dclojfalc" of the French decisions.'"' It must be borne in mind, however, that there is this jiracti- cal distinction between the issues in cases of technical trade- mark infringement and cases of unfair competition where no technical trademark is involved; the court is to be guided to its conclusions not by reference to any arbitrary, fanciful and distinctive device to which the plaintiff has a property- right. But it is for him to determine, in the light of all the facts, whether or not an unfair competition has been instituted by the resjiond- ent. Judge Kirkpatrick, in referring to this question, has said: "Recognizing the i)rinciple. I am of the opinion that the simi- larity (of the competing' articles^ which will warrant llie iiiter- 4fi_Cr„ttw«ll V. Lye. 17 Vi-h. 4ft— Knott v. Mitr^rnii. 2 Kcon. .335; 1 Row. 123; S.-l.. 17. 213; Sob. 57. 47— Ivonl Byron v. .lolmBton. 2 4J)— McL.nn v. Fleming'. 00 U. R. M«T. 20; SH). 23. Th.T.- mny I..- 245; 24 L. Ed. 82ft. unlawful inti-rfrn-nc*' with ii roni 50— U'vrr BroH. ( T.td. I v. Hcd- |(lfiirumt'H liiiHincHH hy rmiHpiracy in(;fi<'ld, RO L. T. 100. U, drivr l.im from tli- field. Kvon- 51— I'ouillct. Miiniu.H do Fab- Hon V. SpHldiM)/, l.'>0 r.-d, 517, 82 riquc ct d." hi Concurrence Hcloy- r. r. A. 2r.3. hIi- (4tli cd.), BOCK. 459 ct acq. 51 I'HKF A'lOHV. [§22 ference ol' the court must bo (letcniiincd by tbe oirfunislances of eaeli case."'"'- While fraud is ])rcsumed from the wrong- ful use of a trademark it must be j)rovcn, directly or by inference, in all cases of unfair competition wliicli do not in- volve a technical trademark.'"'' Whatever the rule nuiy be as to tiie showing to be made by the successful com})]ainant upon the acco\inting, it is well settled that "it is not necessary that the public should be actually deceived in order to afford a right of action. All that is required is that the infringement (to warrant injunc- tive relief) should have a tendency to deceive. "'^^ But it is true of both classes of cases that where the de- fendant's conduct is calculated to mislead, "it is not essential that any ])articular person should have been actually mis- lead,""'"' nor is it necessary to prove that the defendant's goods have actually been sold as the plaintiff's.'**' As the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has said "In respect of imitation being established and such imitation being well cal- culated to deceive it is not necessary to show by specific proof that purchasers have been actually deceived. A court of equity will act before the injurious consequences of the unfair com- petition have made themselves manifest, if the imitation is established, and the consequent deception seems certain to re- sult, "s^ 52— Kroppf V. Furat, 94 Fed. Rep. 150. 53— Church & Dwijjht Co. v. Russ, 09 Fed. Rep. 270-279. "The deceitful representation or perfid- ioua dealing must be made out or be clearly inferable from the circumstances." Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, in Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537- 551. To the same effect see Scriven V. North, 67 C. C. A. 34S, 134 Fed. Rep. 366, affirming, with modifica- tion, Scriven v. North, 124 Fed. Rep. 894. 54 — Dallas, J., in O'Connell v. National Water Co., 161 Fed. Rep. 545, 88 C. C. A. 487, affirming Na- tional Water Co. v. O'Connell, 159 Fed. Rep. 1001. Following Shaw V. Pilling, 175 Pa. 78, 87, 34 Atl. Rep. 446; Consolidated Ice Co. v. Ilygeia Distill.d Water Co., 151 Fed. Rep. 10, 12, 80 C. C. A. 506. 55 — Dallas, J., in Bickmore Gall Cure Co. v. Karns, 134 Fed. Rep. 833, 835; 67 C. C. A. 439; and to the same efl'ect see Scheuer v. Mullor, 74 Fed. Rep. 225, 20 C. C. A. 161 ; Swift & Co. V. Brenner, 125 Fed. Rep. 826. 56— Devlin v. McLeod, 135 Fed. Rep. 164, 166. 57 — Winslow, J., in Manitowoc Malting Co. v. Milwaukee Malting Co., 119 Wis. 543, 97 N. W. Rep. 389. §22] nolKINS ox TKAnr.MAKKS. r^o As wo have luitoil. the policy of llu- law is to encourage legitimate eompetition. Thus it has hceu lu'ld that a iiuiinifae- turer under a i)atent ean not eomplain of the competition of a former employe who has patented an invention in the same art and is manufaeturin[r under iiis patent.'''' This rule that fraud must he proven in cases of unfair com- l)etition is exemplified by reference to the cases cited in the foot-note, where such comparisons have been made by the courts, resultinj; in a findinj: that the competition of the re- spondent was fair/'" and others where the facts have led the court to the contrary conclusion."" With the exception of this feature, the same ti;eneral rules of law and jirocedure prevail in this class of cases as obtain in proceedings to restrain trademark infringement. Thus, an injunction to restrain an unfair competition has been expressly denied upon the ground that the complainant was guilty of laches and acquiescence.^^ Federal jurisdiction in cases of unfair comi)etiti()n must of course be i)redicated upon the general rules fixing the juris- diction of the federal courts, so that those courts can not enter- tain such an action arising between citizens of the same state."^ Roaonstoiu', 70 X. J. Eq. 6.38 ; 02 Atl. Rep. 44(5; Warren Bros. v. BarU-r Asphalt Pavinn; Co., 145 Mich. 7!'. 108 X. \V. Rop. C.r)2; Ban/lmf v. Chase, i:)0 Cal. ISO. 88 Pac. Rep. 704; Perll)erg v. Smith, 70 N. J. Eq. 038, 02 Atl. Rep. 442. 00 — Draper v. Skerrett, 04 Fed. Rep. 012; Anheiiscr-BuBch Brewing Ass'n V. Fred Miller Brewing Co., 87 Fed. Rep. 804; Block v. Stand- ard Distilling: Co., 05 Fed. Rep. 07H; .Mle;:retti Chocolate Cream Co. V. K.ll.r. S.-> Fed. Rep. 043; City of Carl.shud v. Tihhetts, T)! F.-d. Rep. 8.')2. 01— T.a Rejmldique Francaiw v. Scliultz, 04 Fed. Rep. 500. '.01. (i2— Illinois Wateli Cane Co. v. Kl^'in Nat. Watch Co.. 04 F.-d. Rep. 007072. .\nd wr Air Brush Mfy. Co. V. Thayer. 84 Fed. l<«-p. 040. .")8 — American Coat Pad Co. v. Phoenix I'ad Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 629, 51 C. C. A. 330. ,r,ri_Kroppf V. Furst, 94 Fed. Rep. 150; Putnam Nail Co. v. Aii- aahle Horsenail Co., 53 Fed. Rep. .390; Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eu- reka Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. Rep. 704; N. K. Fairlmnk Co. v. Luckel, King & Cake Soap Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 094 ; Klotz. V. lleeht, 73 Fed. Rep. 822; Investor Puh. Co. v. Doliinson, 82 Fed. Rep. 50; C. F. Simmons Med. Co. V. Simmons, 81 Fed. Rej). 1«>2; I>a Repuhlique Francaise v. Schultz, 94 Fed. Rep. 500; Vita- 8Cop«' Co. V. i;'nit<' '27''. I'.nrll.. r;' v. r)3 I'KKFATORY. [§ 23 Fraudulent intent is presumed where the defendant peraists in usiufr an imitative dress after lie has hrcn notified of its similarity, even if his first adoption and iiso of the dress was innocent."^ § 23. Trade slander and libel. — The question whether equity- will enjoin coinpetin^' traders from pnblishintr libelous or slanderous matter eoneerniiijr their eompetitor's business has been frequently presented to the courts. In an early ease Lord Eldon said: "The jiublieation of a libel is a erime, and I have no jurisdiction to ])revent the commission of crimes, except, of course, such cases as belonpr to the protection of infants, where a dealinpr with an infant may amount to a erime — an exception arising; from that peculiar jurisdiction of this court."''-* Ho-w far this doctrine — whieli extended to all forms of libel — has been modified by the federal courts of the United States is an involved question, the discussion of which would not be relevant to this book. But at an early date Lord Cottenham, in refusinpr to enjoin libelous statements uttered of the plaintiff's literary work, said that the proper remedy lay in an action at law.**'^ And the Enfjlish courts have subsequently held that where matter has been held libelous in an action at law, the repetition of the libel would be enjoined in equity.*"'" In one case where the court refused to enjoin a defendant from circulating an adver- 63— Lament, Corliss & Co. v. ton, L. R. 1 H. L. C. 363; Bullock Hershey, 140 Fed. Rep. 763. v. Chapman, 2 DeG. & Sm. 211; 64 — Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. Browne v. Freeman (2), Cox, 402. To the same eflfect see (re- Manual, 424; Prudential Assur- fusinwn the broad jiroposition that "every lepral oecujiation from which pecuniary benefit may be derived creates such special susceptibility to injury by janprua^e chargrinnr unfitness or im- ])rf>per conduct of such occupation that such laufxuafre is action- able, without proof of special damajre. " "' It is the necessary corollary of this rule that a disparajrinf? statement concerning the poods sold by another, whether under a trademark or not. rau.st be of a character to charpe him with business incapacity or improper conduct of his business before it can come within the class of matter that is slanderous or libelous per se. For if the words used apply to the ]>laintiff's merchandise in such a manner as to constitute an imputation of his improper con- duct in or want of capacity for his business, they will be libel ous or slanderous jtrr sr.~' (J7 — Cdllf-v V. Hurt. 7 K. I'. ( . C!) — .AnnTicnn Hook Co. v. (^ntcs. 101. H.-. r,.ri. H.p. 7'2n-7:i4. OR— Chitty, J., in .\nil.TH<.n v. 70— Dnvtv v. Davoy, .'iO N. V. Li«'Jiij»'H Kxtrnrt of Meat Co., 4.'» L. Siipp. 1(U. T. N. S. 7r.7-7.'".H; and to the Bam.' 71— Ohio & Miftfl. Ry. Co. v. • fTwt, Hal84y v. Hrothcrhood. 4.'') L. PrcsB Pub. Co.. 48 Fed. Rep. 20fi. T \. S. 640; Kmpiri' Typrwttin^' 72 — So wIhtc in a criminal pros- Marhino Co. v. LinotyjM- Co., 7!> L. rrution undor tlio Orc^'on Codi- thr- T. N. S. 8. wordu applied to tlic property of 55 rni;i\i()in . [§ 23 The truth is always a defense in aetions of this character. Thus where the i)hiiiitiff had l)()Uf,'lit the goods in question from the defendant and advertised them for sale, the publication of an advertisement by the defendant that read as follows: "An opinion of Shawknit hose should not be formed from the navy blue sloclvin<;s advertised as first (juality by (phiintifT), since we sold (plaintiff) sonu' lots which were dama^'cd in the dye- house," was held not libelous, in the nhsence of a showing of its untruth.'-' Aiul a wide latitude is allowed in criticism of chattels where tlie fads are not ^jiis-stated. So it is not libelou.s to attack the theories advaiu-ed in a book even with sarcasm and ridicule, if there is no niisrepi-esentation of what is set fortli in the book ; "^ and a criticism of one of the pictures of an artist stating that it is not good of its kind is not libelous, where it does not attack him in his professional character gen- erally. "''• So, it has been held in England that no action will lie against a defen(.lant trader for stating falsely and mali- ciously that his goods are sujierior to those of the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff suffers special damage therefrom."" and no false statement directly dis])araging the jdaintiff 's goods is actionable in the absence of proof of special damage.'^' Where an alleged libel consisted of a charge that the plain- tiff had no right to use a certain trademark, it Avas held to be a slander of title and not a libel upon the plaintiff; that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove malice, falsity and special damage, and that the cause of action survived the plaintiff's death. ^■'* The remedy for libel or slander affecting the title to a trade- mark dcjiends upon whether there is a threatened continuance of the publication of the libelous or slanderous matter. "Courts of equity have no jurisdiction of libel or slahder affecting title to property or propei'ty rights, or any other slander or libel, till' jirosocuting witness in such a 74 — Dowliii;,' v. Livinfrstono, 108 manner as to expose him to hatred, Mieh. '.V2l ; (id X. \V. Rep. 2"2.'). contempt or ridicuh', they were 7') — Rattersby v. Collier, 54 X. Y. held to be a libel upon him. State Su])p. 'M\:i. V. Mason, :?S Pae. IJep. ]-M: ^tl 7(1 — Ihibbnck v. Wilkinson (C. Or. 273. A.K L. R. (1898) 1 Q. B. 86. 73_Boynton v. Shaw Stocking: 77— Mellin v. White, L. R. (1895) Co., 14() Mass. 21!); 1.") X. K. Rep. A. C. l.')4. 507. 78— Hatehard v. Mege, L. R. 18 Q. R. D. 771-775. §24] lini'KINS (tV TK\I>1".M VKKS. 56 unless threatened or apprclKMulcil n'ltctition mnkes preventive relief jiroin-r and uei-essary. Tlu" rcinody for past injuries of that iiatiirt' is imderstood to he wholly at law." •'•' § 24. Arc trademark rights monopolistic in character? — In some jurisdietions, tiiere has heeu a tciideiu'y to rej;ard trade- mark rij;hts as otT»'nsivt' monopolies, ami to that fact may he a«'<'ri*dit»'d the line of decisions which have con-strued technical trademark rijrhts very narrowly.**" 79 — \Mioolor, .1., in rnlnicr n. TraviTs, '20 Fi-d. Ki'p. .">0l To tin- siinu otTivt, wf Francis v. I-'liiui, 118 U. S. ;J8."); 30 L. Kd. l(i.'>; MontjxonnTy Ward & Co. v. South Dakota i-tc. Ass'n., l.")ti Fed. Kt-j). 413; Evert'tt Piano Co. v. ilaus, 200 Fod. Rep. 718; 119 C. C. A. 102: Victor Safe & Lock Co. v, DiriKlit, 77 C. C. A. 437 ; 147 Fed. Hep. 211; Marlin Fire Arms Co. V. Shields, 171 N. Y. 384; Balti- more Life Ina. Co. v. CJleianer, 202 I'a. 380; Whiteliead v. Kiston, 119 Mass. 484. 80 — "Monopolies of any sort have never htn-n favorites with the law. Tliey wer*' held l)y th«' com- mon law to he against puldic ploymi'nts, as 'of print- ing tile Holy Scriptures and law 1 looks' etc. Tlie somewliat curious reason given for the si-cond ex- ception is that an unrestrained lil>erty to print the books to which it relates might be 'of dangerous conse(jurnces to the ])ublic.' To tliese exceptions a third must now be added, viz. tlie right of a trades- man to the exclusive uw of such signs, words or symbols as he may have adopted and used in his busi- ness to distinguisli artich-s of his own production from all similar articles produced by other per- sons. These exceptions dt) not im- jiair tile force «if the general rule, 'Exceptio ptnbat rrgulnm de rcbua vott cxccptia.' The rule is unre- stricted liberty in the practice of all arts and trades, and in the use of tlie methods by which they are conducted. He who asserts the riglit to an exclusive privilege in any department of business must bring himself under the protection of some recognized exception to tlie rule. The plaintiffs in this • ase claim an exclusive jirivilege under till- third exception, viz. the right to the sole use of a certain trademark a(lo|)ti-d, used, and reg- istere20; ^^^leeler v. tie Milling Co. v. Robinson, 20 .Johnston, 3 L. R. Jr. 284; Apol- F.-d. Rep. 217. linaris Co. v. Norrish, 33 L. T. X. .•?— D.witt v. Matliey. IS Ky. L. S. 242; Radde v. Norman, L. R. Rep. 2. ".7, 3,-) S. W. Rep. 1113. 61 § '2S] llOIKINS i»N TRADK.M AUKS. 62 determinoil by tin* so In- tors to possess a eei'tain degree of excellence, evidencing that the skill, knowledjre and judgment of the selectors have been exercised in ascertaining that the particular goods so marked are possessed of a merit rendered definite by their examination and of a uniformity rendered certain by their select ion. • Slightly aiuilogous to this class of cases are those where the members of a trades union adopt a label to be used by the workmen who compose the union, upon the goods manufactured by them. In a number of cases their right to the |)i-ote('tion (»f this label, as a trade- mark, has been denied, •'• wliile in others the right is aflirmed.*^ 4— Monondoz v. Holt, 128 J. S. .'■.14-r»20; 32 L. Kd. r.2«; Levy v. Waitt (1), TiC Fed. Rep. 1016; Levy V. Waitt (2), C.l Fed. Rep. 1008, 10 C. C. A. 227; Hirscli v. Jonas, L. R. .3 Ch. 1). r>S4. 'iSi'i; In re Aus- tralian Wine Importers (Ltd.), 41 Ch. D. 278-281; Tliompson & Co. v. RolM-rtson, C't. Sess. Cas. (4th ser. ) XV, 880; 2ri Scot. L. Rep. 040; Yale Ci^'ar Mf;;. Co. v. Yule, :10 ()»T. (.Jaz. 1183; Wood v. Liinibert, L. R. 32 Ch. D. 247. .'i — A'x partf Cij^ar Makers' Ass'n, 10 Off. Gaz. ».")8: Schneider v. Wil- liams, 44 X. J. Kq. 3!»1; Ci-ar Makers' Union v. Conhaim, 40 Minn. 720 (the last case l)y a divided court, three denyin;^ the rijiht of trademark and two af- firmin;; it) ; McVey v. Brendel, 144 I'a. St. 235; Co.\, Manual, Case No. 730; Weener v. Brayton, ir)2 Mass. 101, 25 N. K. Rep. 40, 8 L. R. A. 640; Cox, Manual. Case No. 712; State V. Berlinslicimer, «J2 Mo. A pp. 105. V> — Allen v. McCarthy, :t7 Minn. 34!>; aflirminj.' thi- decision of thi? lower court l>y an eipially divided bench; Bloi-t*- v. Simon, 10 Ahh. X. C. 88; People v. Fisher. 57 X. Y. Sup. Ct. 652; Cigar Makers' Pro- tective Union v. Lindner, 3 Ohio St. Dec. 244; Strasser v. Moonelis, 108 N. Y. Oil; Tracy v. Banker, 170 Mass. 206; Beehe v. Tolerton & Stetson Co., 117 Iowa 593, '.tl X. W. Rep. 005; Bulena v. New man, 31 X. Y. Supp. 44'.t; Ci},'armakers' International Union of America v, (Joldher},', 57 Atl. Rep. 141; Cohn v. People, 140 111. 4S(i; 37 X. E. Rep. (iO; State v. IIaj;en, (J Ind. App. 107, 33 X. E. Rep. 233: Hctterman V. Powers, 102 Ky. 133, 43 S. W. Rep. 180. In Carson v. Ury, Judge Thayer remarks: "It is no douht true that the luiion label does not answer to the definition ordinarily ;;iven to a technical trademark, be- cause it does not indicate with any de;,'ree of certainty by what par- ticular |»«'rstm or tirm the cijiars t«> wiiicli it may l)e atli.xed were man- ufactured, or si-rve to distin^rtiish the jjoods of one ci^^ar manufac- turer from the f,'0 U. S. 460; 37 L. Kd. 1144; Tet- low V. Tappan, 8.'. Fed. Rep. 774; Hyman v. Soils Cigar Co., 4 Colo. Ai)p. 47"); American Washlxjurd Co. V. Saginaw Mfg. Co., 43 C. C. A. 233. 103 Fed. Rep. 281; Welsbach Light Co. V. Adam, 107 Fed. Rep. 463. 16 — Shaver v. Shavt-r, r>4 lowu, 208; 37 Am. Rep. 194; Hull v. BarrowH, HI L. J. Ch. 548; Seb. 215. establish the right of trademark. — "The interference of a court of equity can not depend on the lengtli of time the manufacturer has used the trademark." Romilly, M. R., in Hall v. Barrows, 32 L. J. Ch. 548. The right exists "the moment the article goes into the market so stamped." Westbury, L. C, in I^IcAndrew v. Hassett, 4 DeG. J. & S. 380-38(5. The right dates from the time when tlie actual occupation of the market with goods bearing the mark began. Levy v. Waitt, 61 Fed. Rep. 1008-1011, 10 C. C. A. 227; compare \V. A. Gaines & Co. V. Roek Spring Dist. Co., 226 Fed. Rep. run, 538 (C. C. A. 6), and Hanover Star Mill Co. v. Metcalf. 240 U. S. 403, 60 L. Kd. — . 17— Mr. Justice Miller in Trade- mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82; 2."> L. Va\. 550. 65 Tin: vcQUisiTiON op a trademark. [§'W its user as against one whose use has been "long-continued, notorious, and universally reeofi^nized." '** §30. Affixing the mark. — As stated in onr definition, the mark must be affixed to the subject it serves to identify. "It may be either affixed to, or impressed upon, the goods them- selves by means of a stamp or an adhesive label, or it may be made to accompany the goods by being impressed or made to adhere to an envelope or ease containing the goods." ^^ It has been held in England that a trademark may be water- marked, 2" and a measuring stick with an octagonal head, used as a core for rolls of carpet, has been held to be of itself a valid trademark. 21 The question of the mode of affixing is purely practical, and one package, parcel or bottle of mer- chandise may bear a number of trademarks. A very large percentage of the liquors imported into the United States from Europe bear not only the trademark of the producer, but also that of the bottler: and in many cases another trademark, that of the capsule manufacturer, is to be found impressed in the metallic capsule. In like manner a complicated machine may bear many trademarks, indicating the manufacturers of the wheels, axles, oil-cups, bearings, etc., and the machine as a whole bear the comprehensive trademark of the maker who has selected these several parts and assembled them. A trademark can not be acquired by merely using the mark in advertising. 22 §31. Registration not a means of acquiring. — With the solitary exception of the California case of Whittier v. Dietz,"^^ it has nowhere been held in the United States that the right IS— Heiibloin v. Adams, 125 Fed. 21— Lowell ISIfp. Co. v. Larnod, ■Rop. 7S2, 7S."). And see ante, sec. Cox, Manual, Xo. 428; Fed. Case 14. Xo. 8570. 19— Sir G. Jessel, :M. R., in 22— Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Ha- Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 2 Ch. D. zelton Tripod Boiler Co., 142 111. 434. 404, 30 N. E. Rep. 339. St. Louis 20 — Alexander Pirie & .'^lons v. Piano Mfg. Co. v. Merkel, 1 Mo. Goodall, L. R. (1891) 1 Ch. D. App. .^05. 35-41 ; holding a watermark to be 23 — 00 Cal. 78. Tliis decision a "brand" within the meSninf,' of led to the enactment of the pres- sec. 64, subsec. 2 (c) of the Pat- ent section 3190 of the Political onts. Designs and Trademarks Code of California (March 12, Act, 1883. 1885), providing that "An person §31 nOl'KINS OH TUAnKMAKKS. 66 to a trademark is i-reatod by reijistration.-^ Section 1 of the act of 1905 provides tluit owners of trademarks nsed in com- merce may obtain rejristration of sucli trailemarks by com- plying with the requirements stipulated in the act. The appli- cant nnist sliow tlmt he. and no one else, has a ri^'lit to use tiie mark; that he is actually usinp it in commerce with forci^^n nations or amonjr the several states, or with Indian tribes; and that it is not so similar to the rcj^istcrcd or known mark »tf aiu.thcr as to be calculated to deceive.-"' So that registra- tion under the act of congress is in no sense a means of ac- quiring the right to a trademark ; -''• and indeed the actual who liHH first adopted and used a tradi-niark or name, wliether with- in or JK»yond th<' limits of this statv, is its ori^'iiial 1; 48 S. \V. Rep. 4«7. "The general rtile adojtted liy the courts on this subject is that state statutes providing for registration of trademarks are in affirmance of the common law ; that the reme- dies given hy such statutes are either declaratory or cumulative and additional to those reeogni/cd and ajjplied hy the common law." I'cr curiam, in Woodcock v. (Juy, Xi Wash. 234, 74 Pac. Rep. 358. "As the name 'Remington' is an ordinary family surname, it was manifestly jncapal>le of exclusive a|*])r(>priation as a valid trade- mark, and its registration as such could not in its<'lf give it valid- ity." Mr. Chief .Justice Fuller in Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Sea- mans & Benedict. 108 U. R. 118; 40 L. Kd. 072; reversing Wyckoff. Seamans 4 Benedict v. Howe Si-ale Co., 5« C, C. A. 010; 122 Fed. Uej.. May, \a Fed. Rep. 230. "Registration under the act of 1S81 is of hut little, if any, value, except for the purpose of creating a permanent record of the date of adoption and use of the trade- mark, or in cases where it is nec- essary to give jurisdiction to the United States courts." Ilawley, J., in Hennessy v. Braunsdiwei- ger & Co., 8!) Fed. Rep. ()0.")-0<»8; t|Uottd and followed in Sleepy Eye Milling Co. v. C. F. Blanke Tea and Coffee Co., 8') Off. Oaz. 1905. It does not create a trademark. I'nited States v. Braun, 30 Fed. \\^']^. 77."); Sarrazin v. W. R. Irhy Cigar Co., 03 F<>d. Rep. 0243 Fed. Rep. 380. 300; Brower V. Boulton (2), .')8 F.-d. R.'p. 888- 800. 7 C. C. A. 507; Einstein v. Sawhill, O.l Off. C.az. 1*018; Sher- wood V. Horton, Cato A Co., 84 Off. Ca/. 2018; La Croi,x v. May, 15 F.d. Rep. 230. 67 TiiK ACcii'isrnoN or \ 'hmucm ark. [§32 applioatioii of tlie ti'adcni.i rU in coiiimerec is so essential a prcrciinisito to ri>fj:ist ration under the act, that as between two }ipi)Ii('ants for re^^'ist ration of the same mark, one of whom had in fact used his mark in trade, wliile the other liad tiie assif,'n- mcMit of the mark, accpiired by transfer from its inventor, but had never actually api)lied it, the commissioner of i)atcnts held that tiic actual j)rior use determined the ri^'ht to the nuirk.-" ]iut re^'istration under the laws of the United States and under the laws of several of the states, while ereatinf,' 7U) new rights, confers remedies and special protection to the owner of a trademark which we will examine in another chapter. It follows from what has been said in this section that the fraudident registration of a ti-ademark by one not its true owner will avail liini nothing. In dealing with such a case Judge Ray has said: "The acts of the Consolidated Hoof Pad romi)any are but tiie unlawful ai)i)ropriation of the tradename of the Revere Rubber Company, and an attempt to obtain the apparent sanction of the general government to the unlawful appropriation by clandestinely procuring such tradename be- longing to Revere Rubber Company to be registered as the trademark of Consolidated Hoof Pad Company. When one manufacturer or dealer has used certain letters as a trade- name until his goods have come to be known and called for generally by that name, a competitor in the same business can not gain any right, superior or otherwise, by procuring such letters (or such name, if it be a name), to be registered under the trademark laAvs as his, or its, trademark. Such larceny as this is neither encouraged, sanctioned, nor legal- ized. "^^^ § 32. Acquisition by assignment. — The assignment of trade- marks is a subject of some difficulty and is discussed elsewhere in this book. It is sufficient in this connection to say that trademark rights ai'c generally assignable, that quality being indispensable to the striking characteristic of perpetual exist- 27 — Schraudor v. Beresfnrd A; 2R — T?ovpro 'Rul»bor Co. v. Con- Co., Browne, Trademarks, 661. solidated Hoof Pad Co., l.SO Fed. Rep. 1.->1, l.-i4. §3a] IIOI'KINS o\ Tl{ \I>IM \I:KS. (iS ence possessotl by trademarks. aii*l tlint a proper assij^fiiment foiivfvs to tilt' assij:mM' all the property rifjhts in iiiul to tlie traileiiiark possessed liy his assi^jiior.'-"' The aet of lOOf). see. 10 provides that a iv'^'isfered trademark :iiid t i-adeiiiarks for the rejjistrntioii of whieh application has been made, sliall l)e assijrnable in connection with the <5oodwill of the business in which it is employed: and any assiL'iniient of siieh mark sliall be void as aprainst a snl)se«pient i»urehaser fftr value without notice unless recorded in the T^atent Ofllci^ within three months from its date. "We iu*ed note ;it this time only the peneral restriction on the nssifrnability of trademarks — tliat they can not be assipned save in connection witli the proodwill of the business with which they are identified. •"•" It is true of trademarks as of other personal property that the preat mark of ownership is po.ssession. and contracts that the title to jiersonalty shall be in one party and the ]>ossession in another c^n not be set up to the prejudice of a bona fide jiurchaser without notice. Accordiufrly, a contract that the ri»5n. ri«12; Spif^'cl V. ZuckiT- man. I7'» I'Vd. Rop. •.•7ft; Indcpcn- di-nt Hakinjj PiiwdtT Co. v. Uoor- man, 17.'f F«'d. 44ft. 31 — C)akfH V. Totismic-rr*', 1!' Fi-«l. Hip. 447-4.V2. 32— Taylor v. CarpftO; Cox. 20; ColTccn v. Brunton, 4 :^IcL«'an, r)10; Cox, 82; and iindor a criminal act a^'ainst countcrfcit- in;; trademarks, a conviction was sustained hy the Missiniri Supremo Court wliiTi' the defendant counter- feited the murk of an Kn;;lish nianufiictiirer. State v. (iilihs, .')fi Mo. 133. 33— Cidlins v. Cow en. 3 K. A .T. 42ft; C«dlins Co. v. Hn.wn. 3 K. & .T. 423; Ccdlins Co. v. Walker, 7 W. n. 222; Collins Co. v. ReevPH, 2ft L. .T. Ch. .''•0; Ilowe v. McKer- nan, 30 lleav. .')47. (il) TllK AClillSIIKiN <»K \ TKADl.M AKK. [§34 Scotland,"'' CaiuKla."' and India.-'' Hut it has ho.cn licld that a foreipfuer lias no coininon law rijflit to a trad(!inark in the United States as aj^aiiist a eitizen who has adojjted a similar mark, in {?ood faith, before the alien has sold any floods in this coantry,'*^ Under our treaty relations with florniany, a German stib- jeet has been f;ranted ])roteetioii in the use of the word "Kaiser" as a trademark, although the term was open to common use in Clermany and Austria.'''* An alien religious order havinp: established trademark rights in the United States is not deprived of those rights by the confiscation of its jjropcrty abroad,- when it removes to another foreign country and contiiuies the manufacture of its trade- marked product.3» § 34. Priority of appropriation. -Tn order to acquire a trade- mark, its claimant nuist be its first api)roj)riator, as we have seen; for, as said by Finletter, J., "in no other way can a mark or device indicate 'true origin or ownership.'"'*'^ In- deed, Bouvier has defined the right of trademark in these terms: "The right of trademark is said to be best termed an exclusive right arising from first use;"^^ and it has been said by the United States Supreme Court that "The exclusive right to the use of a mark or device claimed as a trademark is founded on priority of appropriation ; that is to say, the claimant of a trademark must have been the first to use or employ the same on like articles of production." ^^^ There* 34_Sinp;or ilfg. Co. v. Kinihall 74fi, 748 (in which the above text & Morton, Ct. Sess. Cas. (3d. sort. is quoted and approved). XT. 2(57. 38— J. & P. Baltz Brew. Co. v. 3.) — Davis V. Kennedy, 13 Crant, Kaiserbraiierei, Beck &. Co., 20 C. C. Up. Can. Ch. 523. Tabst Brewing? A. 402, 74 Fed. Bep. 222, 224. Co. V. Ekers, Rap. Jud. Que. 21 C. 30— Baf;lin v. Cusenier Co., 150 S. 545. Fed. Bep. 1010; affirmed, 221 U. S. 3fi — Orr-Ewing v. Chooneeloll 580; 55 L. Ed. 803. :Mullick, Cor. 150; Orr-Ewing v. 40 — Sheppard v. Stuart. 13 Phil. Grant, Smith & Co., 2 Hyde, 185. 117: Price & Steuart, 103-200. 37 — Richter v. Anclior Remedy 41 — Bouvier, Diet., title "Trade- Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 455; Richter v. marks." Reynolds. 59 Fed. Rep. 577, 8 C. C. 42— Columl)ia Mill Co. v. Alcorn. A. 220; Eiseman v. Schiffer, 157 150 U. S. 400; 37 L. Ed. 1144. See Fed. Rep. 473, 475; Walter Baker also Manitowoc Mfg. Co. v. Dicker- & Co. V. Delapenha, 160 Fed. Rep. man, 57 Off. Gaz. 1721. ^;J4) HOPKINS ON TRXnKMARKS. (0 must necessarily be siu-li a use as (lualilics the mark as an iu- duatiun of the orijjin and ownersliip of the goods to whieh it is applied. If the same mark had been in prior use by another at the same phiee or another locality tiear enou«rh to start a similar ri^'ht. tlie seeoTid user could liave no trademark ri^rht to it.*'' "Ill (inlor that llic claiinaiil (if tlic trademark may primarily ncfiuirt^ tlio rif.dit of ])ro]iorty in it. it must have been orijrinally ado]ited and used by him— that is. the assumed name or desipnation must not be one that was tlion in actual use ])y others: and such adojition and use confer upon him the ripht of property in tlie trademark.""" A trademark havinp no nece.s.sary relation to invention or discovery.''' it is the party avIio first actually uses a mark, and not the one who first thouprht of it or desijrncd it. that is entitled to ]iro- teetion in its use as a trademark.^" A mere declaration of intention to use a certain mark in the future does not create a ripht to its use as a trademark, for siu-h rifrht can only oripinate with the actual use of the mark in commerce.-'" And it has been held in England, by T.ord Justice rairns, that there can be no ripht of trademark until the poods bearinp the mark are actually upon the market, and that it can not be protected before that time, even thouph the poods to which it is to be applied are in the course of manufacture, and the claimants of the mark have made expenditures in advertis- ing it.^" The ripht to the mark must relate back to its first use.-*" A mark once abandoned is open to appropriation by another who adopts it subseciuently in pood faith. '^^ 43— Ti'tlow V. Tappan. 8") F«m1. .')0 N. K. Pup. 1111. liliii'- Monaon Ri-p. 774; llyniioi v. Soliw ('i;.'ar v. Ho.lim. L. R. 2<5 Cli. D. 31)8, 407, Co., 4 Colo. App. 47:). 4()S; Levy v. Waitt (2), 10 C. C. 44_D2 F.<1. J. E(|. 3!tl . 11 Atl. R.p. 812; 44 nop. 830; Triwlorf.r & Co. v. Kh- OfT. Caz. 1400 Utf of HHw«-tt, 00 MSS. I). S.-pt. 48— Ma.\\v.-ll v. Uo^r. ^- R- 2 1800. Cli. 307; 30 L. J. Cli. 4:J:t . 10 L. "The ri^'lit to a tradrmark d.xK T. X. S. 1.30; Sil.. 204. not d«'fM-nd «i|Min orij^'inulity. I'Vi-n 49 — O'Roiirko v. Central City an apiinxt tin* orij;inatnr of tin- Soap Co., 20 Fed. Rep. .'i7fl-.'>78. rhararU'rintic \ini>." IIolmcH, ('. .1 . .'iO — Urowcr v. Roiilton, r)3 Fed. in Hurt V Ttirk.-r. 178 Mbhh. 403; R.p. 380. 71 TIIK ACCillSITION OK \ TK ADKM \ KK. [§'^4 It was licld by the lato Mr, .Justice ]{ro\vn when nisi prius judge that one wlio be^'ins to use a mark wliilr it is in use by anotlier can not ac(piire title by a sul)se(|U('nt abandornnent by the first user, the court observing "if it be once conceded that a person may acquire a good title to a trademark by ai)i)roi)riati()n, witliout tlie consent of the lawful owner, it would enable a manufacturer, by the use of large capital or superior energy, to drive competitors out of business by seizing their trademarks, and using tliem for that very pur- pose, provided the lawful owner is unable or unwilling to assert his rights by resort to the courts." ^'^ With this ai)par- ently sound doctrine the Court of Appeals, D. C, has differed, its reasoning being: "As long as the first appropriator is using the mark, the second acquires no property right therein. If his use interferes with that of the true proprietor, courts of equity afford the latter a swift and adequate remedy. We can not assume that one whose rights are invaded will not avail himself of such aid. If he is unwilling to do so, he must accept the consequences. When the owner abandons his mark, it becomes the subject of reapj)ropriation and the property of the first taker. We fail to see why one already using the mark, where, as in this case, he has acted in good faith and without knowledge of its prior use, should not be as much entitled to appropriate it as one whose date of adoption is subsequent to the abandonment." ^2 As a matter of practice, inasmuch as the plaintiff must show title in order to make a case, evidence of the fact that he or his 'oredecessor in title was the first to appropriate the mark to the class of goods for which he claims it as a trade- mark, is usually a part of the prima facie case. In a New York case, it was shown in defense that prior to the date when plaintiff first labeled cigars with the label in controversy, certain label manufacturers had sold the same label to other persons in the trade. Injunction was denied upon the ground that such evidence negatived plaintiff's claim of exclusive title.53 -''1 — O'Rourko V. Central City v. Vir<;inia-Cnrolina Chom. Co., 3.') Soap Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 576. App. D. C. 42.1, ir>6 O. G. .'i.'^O. 52 — Mayer Fertilizer &, Junk Co. 53 — Wapnor v. Daly, 07 ITiiii 477, 22 X. Y. Supp. 403. §34] IlOl'KINS ON TRADEMARKS. 72 A trail«'inark rijjlit can not ho iic^'ativcil by any prior use for more decorativo jMirposes or on another class of floods.''* And it has boon hold that tho prior use as Etifjlish silver hall- marks of the three eomiionent parts comprised in the com- plainant's mark did not deprive him of a trademark right therein.''^ It is now well established that prioi-ity of adoption alone does not necessarily determine the ownershij) of the mark. The use of the mark by one claimant may ho "so transitory, spas- modic, and inconsiderable." as not to vest title in the user as apiinst one whose use has been "lonp contiinied, and univer- sally roeopnized." •'•" As Judfje Elmer B. Adams has stated it. "The rifrht to a trademark at common law. independent of the rcfiistration statute, is not created by invention or priority of adoption alone. A word, symbol, or device, to be a valid trademark constitutinpr a riprht of projjcrty. nnist have been used by the owner in connection with tlie sale of his goods for such length of time, and under such circumstances, as indicates to the trade that the goods in connection with which it appears are his goods, as distinguished from those of other manufacturers or dealers. The mere adoption of such word, symbol, or device, unaccompanied by such a use, is not sufficient to create an exclusive right thereto.''''' It is noteworthy in this connection that in a very recent decision of the Court of Session in Scotland, before the Lord President (Dunedin) and Lords McLaren, Kinnear and Pear- son, the rule we are contending for has been explicitly announced. In the decision of that ( ourt as announced by the Lord President, it is said : "My Lords, I think it is very necessary to keep this firmly in view — that what we are doing in this case is .'i4 — .JcilmHon i .Inhntom v. St-n- To tlif Himir i fTn-t we Tt-tlow v. bury 4 .lohnMin, <»1 Atl. ]\i-\t. ."), Tup|mii, S."t Ki-d. Ilrp. 774, 77.') ; 09 N. .1. Fj\. r.nfl. T,..vv V. Wiiitt. 10 ('. C. A. 227. 01 55 — Oorham Mf;:. Cu. v. W.in- Ird. It.p. Ktos. 2.') I.. R. A. 190; troub, 170 F.d. Hip. 027. foli.n v. Na^ih', ino Mn««. 4, 70 50 — nc'uhliin V AduniK. 12.'. F<(1. X. K. Rep. 270; Mctcalf v. Tlnnovt-r n*'p. 7fi2, 7R.'.. Sta-- Mill. Co., 204 F.-d. R.-p. 211; 57— Mnrmalinn Pliarmacal fo. v. 122 C. C. A. 4S3; afllrnicd, 240 T'. r>«-nv.r fliiniiral Mf^'. Co. 113 S. 403; CO L. TA. — . F.d. R.p. 408-470; 51 C. C. A. 302. 73 Tin-: \c(^risrn<>\ or a th\i>f.mai{k. [§35 Sometliiii. 12;"), 120; cron, Ld., 24 R. P. C. fin?, at pages Dictz v. llortoii Mfg. Co., 170 Fed. 720, 721. Rep. 86;% 860. ;")0— Chatfiold. J., in Taylor Pro- 60— -See §§72, 76, 77; Act 100;"), vision Co. v. Gobel, 180 Fed. Rep. § .'). 938; to same effect, Thomas G. 61— Sa^%7•er v." Kellopp, 7 Fed. Carroll & Son Co. v. Mcllvaine & Rep. 720, 722. 5 35] HOPKINS ON TRADEMVUKS. 74 to tlio adoption of a coi-poratc lumic cnihodyin^ a proper name/'- niul (»f cowrso t(» partiuM'sliip iiames."-' Tho I'onvoyaiu'e of such a ri^'lit imist bo clear and inu'cpiivocal ; "the riplit of a man to nse his own name in eoiniection witli his own business is so fundamental that an intention to entirely divest liimself of such ri^rht and transfer it to anotlier will not readily be i)resnmed. but unist be elearly shown. Where it is so shown, the transnetion will be upheld, but it will not be sustained ujion doubtful or uncertain jiroof. ""■• 02— Oarr.'tt v. T. II. Carrctt & (U— Harrison. .1.. in F. T. Co., 24 C. v. A. IT.'l. 7H Fed. Rop. Hluncliurd ("o. v. Simon, 51 S. E. 472. 475. Ucp. 222, 104 Va. 209. fi3— Cordon Hollow Blast Crate Co. V. Gordon. 142 Mich. 488, 106 N. W. H.-i.. 1118. OTTAPTET? TTT. WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADEMARK. § 36. The general rule. — Having .seen in the preceding chap- ters .sonictliiii},' of the general requisites of a valid trademark, we now approach the .subject of the more exact tests to be applied in determining its validity. It is the general rule that a mark must be truthful and unobjectionable on the ground of being a generic term.' §37. It must be truthful. — This rule is apparently simple, yet it has given rise to much discussion and some apparent conflicts in the decisions. Honest competition is the require- ment of the chancellor, and he is just as ready to dismiss the bill of a complainant whose trademark is calculated to deceive the public into a belief that his goods are something other than they actually are, as he is to enjoin the defendant where he has infringed an honest trademark. The modern law of unfair trade is a perfect superstructure of ethical prin- ciples, founded upon the basis of all ethics — honesty. In no class of cases is the rule that he who comes into a court of equity must do so with clean hands more rigidly applied.^ It is not material whether the words or symbols used as trade- mark contain the deceptive or untruthful statement. Indeed the dishonest matter is usually foreign to the mark itself, and contained in other matter used in advertising or describing the goods sold under the mark. In order to appreciate the trademark cases involving the question of untruthful representation, the reasoning of the courts in other avenues of jurisprudence, in which the con- sideration of the effect of such conduct is involved, is worthy of study. It is impossible to collate even the leading cases illuminative of this subject, within the limitations imposed upon 1 — Prince 'Wip. Co. v. Princo's 2 — Dadirriaii v. Yacubian, 08 Metallic Paint Co. (2), 135 N. Y. Fed. Rep. 872-876. 24, 31 N. E. Rep. 990. 75 § ;{.n] IIOI'KINS ON* TIUDEMAUKS. 76 n special treatise of this cliaraotor; b\il wf will refer to some of the most notable. In sustaining the Massachusetts Oleo- niarfrarine act, Mr, .Justice Harlan found that "the real ob- jfet of eolorinjr oleoinarjrarine so as lo iiiiiUf it look like frenuine Imlter is that il ni;iy iijipejii- In be wimt it is not. and thus induce \in\vary |turfhasers, who do not elosely serutinize the label upon the paekajre in whieh it is contained, to buy- it as and for butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream from such milk. • • • The «'onstitution of the United States does not secure to any one the privilcjj^c of de- fraudintr the i)ublic."^ In a suit for breach of contract, where the defense had oflfered proof tendinj; to show that menhaden delivered under the contract by the plaintiff were jiacked by the plaintiff under the false brands "Alaska Mackeral." "Russia Mackeral," and "Family White Fish." the court said: "Humanity is entitled to know what it buys and con- sumes, (lovernment is instituted and maintained, and law is administered, for the i)rotection of the i)eople; and jus- tice intluenced by enlif?htened i)ublic policy, and controlled by Icjral ])rinciples, rc(juires that contracts shall not be upheld and enforced for the bcnelit of a wronp doer, where the subject-matter tliereof is dcsierfcctly pure and unadulterated. ' an injunction was refused because of this misrepresentation. This decision, whose tendency is more far-reachinjr than that of Manhnftan Mcdiriuc Co. v. WnodJ' .1 — PIiimI«-v V. MuHHnrtium'ttH. l.'i.'i 4 — Church v. Proctor, 00 Fid. r S. 401. 407. 470. :M» ].. Ki\. 22.'r lt.|). 240.24.'i; 1.1 C. C. .\. 420. .-,— )(»M TT. S. 21S; 27 T-. IM. 70'.';. 77 wii \r coNsTiTrTi^s a vami» timdkmakk. [§'^'^ seems on tlio i-cadiii^ of llic facts to impose a hardship on the owners of tlio mark, Jas. E. Pej)pcr & Co. The interest of the eomplainant was derived nnder a contract with that firm privinp: liim the entire control of their trade in bottled whisky. The proof siiowed that up to and including the year 1891 the Pepper Company bottled nothing under the gold trade label partially described al)ove used by them but "Old Pep- l)er" whisky distilled l»y them, but that after November, 1891, the demand for the distillery bottling became so great that they could not supply it with the output of their own dis- tillery and therefore bought other whiskies shown to be more expensive, older and nmde by the same formula as their own, and blended these whiskies with their own, and bottled the resulting blend under the same label and trademark. Here, if ever, one would think equity would relax its rule, and, as the public had not suffered by the complainant's acts, would continue to protect the trademark. But the learned court thus tersely applies the principles: "Pepper offers as an excuse for bottling a mixture that the demand for his goods had so increased that he could not supply it with Pepper whisky. What was this demand for? Plainly for pure and unadulterated Pepper whisky, bottled at the distillery. If this could not be honestly supplied, then it could not be supplied at all in such a way as to keep the business within the protection of a court of equity. Relief is refused to Pepper and his privies because of his misrepresentations to the pub- lic."^ Thus is emphasized the statement of Mr. Justice Field that the protection of equity is extended to the owner of a trademark "not only as a matter of justice to him, but to prevent imposition upon the public."" There are a number of cases in which the misrepresentation has been held to be so slight and immaterial as not to disentitle the complainant 6 — Krauss v. Jos. R. Peebles' to be. Prince Mfg. Co. v. Prince's Sons Co., .58 Fed. Rep. 584-,50fi. An Metallic Paint Co. (2), 135 N. Y. English case resembling this as to 21. .31 N. E. Rep. 000. the facts is Starey v. Chilwortb 7 — Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Gunpowder Co., L. R. 24 Q. B. D. Wood. 108 U. S. 218-22.3; 27 L. Ed. 00 706 ; citing Amoskeag Manufactur- Relief will be denied in such ing Co. v. Trainor, 101 U. S. f)! ; cases although the articlr is ac- 25 L. Ed. 993. tually as good as it is represented §39] llolKINs ON TKVDKMAKKS. 78 to relief.'^ Tims, a olaim l»y the inamifaeturor of a palont modiciiu' that it pormaiuMitly overcomes habitual constipation, will not, even if untnu'. disentitle the plaintiff from relief in t'tjuity, the court taking' judicial notice of the fact that the effect of any medicine for constipation is lar^'cly dependent iipon the constitution and hahits of the jx-rson treated."' The use of the words "Sole Manufacturer" by a dealer who does not manufacture, but has the article i)roduced for him by another, has been held not to debar the user of the trademark from equitable relief,"^ as lias the addition of the word "distillers'* to the firm name of former proprietors of a distillery owiu>d by a complainant." § 39. The cases of false representation in connection with trademarks. — In 1837 the Eiifrlish Ili^di Court of Chancery in I'uldimj V. How, announced that it could not interfere in be- half of a plaintiff who had "thought fit to mix up that which may be true with that which is false" in his labels and adver- tisements.'2 The Court of Appeals of New York in a similar case in 1848, by Gardiner, J., observed laconically, "The i)rivi- lege of deceiving the public, even for their own benefit, is not a legitimate subject of commerce ; and at all events, if the maxim that he who asks equity must come with pure hands is not altogether obsolete, the complainant has no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of a court of chancery in favor of such a monoj)oly." '•'' Prior to this, an injunction was re- fused where the mark in question was applied hy the com- plaiiumt to a "quack" medicine.'^ "Balm of Thousand Flow- ers" the name of a cosmetic, being deceptive, its infi-ingement by a defendant a.s.suming the name "Balm of Ten Thousand 8— Tarrant & Co. v. TTofT. 71 Fid. 11— Fra/.i.r v. I)(.\vlin;r. Ifi Ky. L. Rep. 103; anTirmt'd, 70 Fid. R.j.. Ki-p. 1109, .30 S. \V. Ut-p. 4'). 959, 22 C. C. A. 044; C.ntaur Co. 12— PiddiiiK v. How. S Sim. 477; V. RohinBon, ftl F<-d. Rep. 88!) -, Cox. 040; follow.-d in Perry v. RaniM)m v. Bull, 7 X. Y. Supp. 2'M. Truffit. Rrav. 00; Cox, 044. 9 — California Fij,' Syrup Co. v i:{ — l'artrid;rc v. Mcnck. 2 Sandf. Word.-n, n.-i F.d. Rep. 132-134. <1.. U. 022; 2 Rarl). Ch. R. 101; 1 10— fJluckman v. Strancli, !•! N. ll..\v. App. Cas. fiAS; Cox. 72. Y. Supp. 223, afllrmi'd. IHf, \ Y 11— Fowlc v. Sp.«ar, 7 IVnn. L. r>«0, 7n N. E. Rc-p. 1100. I. 170; Cox, 07; followed in Heath V. \Vri;;ht. 3 Wall. .Ir.. 1: Cox. XTA. WHAT CONS'I'ITL'TRS A VALID 'I'KAI >I>.\I AKK. [§39 Flowers'" was not ciijoiiicd,'' alllioii^'li llic same mark was held valid and llic v\i\i' announced that "the public should be left to its own j,'uai-diansliij)" in Fi;.M AKKS. 80 of any falso or misloadiiit: n-prcscntation ; that if tlio plaintifT makes any material false statement in conneetion with tlie property whicli lie seeks to proteet, he loses his ri};ht to elaim the assistaiu-e of a eourt of ecpiity; that where any symbol or lahel I'laiiiu'd as a trademark is so construeted or worded as to make or eoTitain a distinct assertion whieh is false, no property can be claimed in it. or. in other words, the rijrht to the exclusive use of it can not be maintained." '" For the reasons we have been considerinpr in this chapter, the Patent Office has refused to admit to repistration as a trademark for powdered soap "the picture of a baj? havinp the open end thereof closed by a tie." the commissioner hold- ing that such a mark was necessarily deceptive or descrip- tive, and in either event was not a valid trademark.''* Conversely, it is manifest that it is no defense to a viola- tion of a pure food law that the defendant sold an inferior milk product under the tradename "Evaj^orated Cream." 2" It is no answer to plaintiff's misrepresentation that defend- ant's conduct is without justification.'' §40. Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood.— This decision, the lanpuapc of whoso f)]Mnif)ii has boon more often cited in sup- port of the proposition under consideration than any other, was based on this statement of facts: The coinplaiuaiit derived all its trade riphts in and to a lu-ojirietary modiciiu^ styled "Atwood's Genuine Physical Jauiulico "Bitters" from its origi- nal manufacturer, ]\roses Atwood. who lived at fioorfretown, Ma.ssachusetts, and manufactured it there. The court says: "It is not honest to state that a medicine is manufactured by Moses Atwood. of Ceorfrotown. I\fassachusotts. when it is man- ufactured by the Manhattan ^ledicinc Company, in the city of IR — f'lintnn K. Wordcn & Co. v. moaninplcBS as Jippliod to the falifornin V'm Svr>i|» Co.. 187 U. froodw, so as to ho noithor deacrip- S. nU?. ri2«; 47 L. Kd. 282 288. To tivr nor dpooptivc." Diull, Com- the Bami- ••(Tt-ct b*-*- T>i v. Ilirsoh, miHwioncr. in Hx parte IVnrson To- 12.1 Fod. Rop. r)fi8; Miin.rip Co. v. !)acco Co.. 8'. 0(T. Cm. 287. Taylor (Cnl.», 37 Ptir R.p. 235; 20— Stato v. Totu. 08 Minn. 3r.l, 26 L. R. A 103. 107 N. W. Rep. 0:.3. \9—Fx pnrtr Martin, 80 OfT. Ha/. 21— Kpporson * Co. v. Rliith.-n- 22r)0. "A word to Iw nwd as a Oinl, 140 Ala. 125, 42 So. Rop. tnulvmark miiRt obviouBly he 863. HI \vii\i coNsmi lis \ \\i.iit IK \i)i,.\iAi{K. f§-il Now York."-- On tlioso facts tlic protection of their mark was refused complainants. § 41. The similar cases — Assig-nment must be made public in conjunction with the trademark, when. Following Manhat- tan M(-(fiicinoly, where he has none. As stated by Vice-Chancellor Wood, in MorgoAi V. McAchnn:'^ "All those who are induced to buy these cru- cibles thus described as 'Patent Plumbago Crucibles' are to a certain extent deceived, because they are led to believe that the article is protected by a patent, and thus may be induced to purchase it from the plaintiff under the belief that there is a patent, and that the plaintiffs, or at least some limited number of persons, are the only persons authorized to sell it ; and 20_Ford V. Foster, L. R. 7 Ch. D. fill; 27 L. T. X. S. 220; 20 W. R. 311; Cox, Manual, 384. Tn this case the false use of the word "patentee," used by the complain- ant in advertisements, was held to l>j a collateral mlHrepn-sentntion wliieh did n<»t disentitle him to a remedy iti e(|uity a^^'ainst an infrin- ger. 27 — Consolidated Fruit .Tar Co. V. Dorflinper, Fed. Case No. 3129; 6 Fed. Cas. 330; 2 Am. Law. T. Rpp. N. S. nil; Cox, Manual, 444. The same rule is announced in Fn^'land in Leather ("loth Co. v. L..rHont. L. R. ¥a\. 34r>; 30 L. J. Ch. 80; 21 L. T. N. S. 001; 18 W. R. r)72; Cox, Manual, Case No. 324; Xixey v. RotTey, W. N. 1870, p. 227; Cox, Manual, Case No. 343; Olipliant V. Salem Flourinj,' Mills, f) Sawyer 128, Fed. Case 10,480; Beecham v. Jacobs, 159 Fed. Rep. 120; 80 C. C. A. 623; alhrmed, Jacobs V. Beecham, 221 U. S. 203, f).-) L. Ed. 720. 28— Lamplou^'h v. Halni.r, W. \. 1807, p. 203. 20—30 L. J. Ch. 228; Cox. Man- ual, Case No. 207. Other ar;xi>- ments are used by the same judpe in Flavel v. Harrison, 10 Hare, 407: 22 L. J. Ch. 800; 17 Jur. 308; 1 W. R. 213; Cox, Manual, Case No. 110. 83 WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TIIADEMARK, [§ 42 further, they are led to believe that if they should be minded to set up any manufactory of the same kind for tliemselves, they would be unable to do so in consequence of the phiinlifTs being the possessors, either by way of license or owjiershij), of a patent preventing the world at large from imitating the article which is sold by them under this particular designa- tion." And although in another English case^^ a plaintiff was held entitled to recover in an action at law in a case of this kind, where his father had held a patent held to be invalid (as in Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Dorflinger, supra, where the con- trary rule is announced), the rule is generally that, where no valid patent has ever existed, the use of the words indicating the contrary will debar the plaintiff from relief in equity.'" I\rr. Justice Fuller has accurately defined the rule under consideration in the following language: "No right to a trade- mark which includes the word 'patent,' and which describes the article as 'patented,' can arise when there is and has been no patent; nor is the claim a valid one for the other words used, when it is based upon their use in connection with that word. "32 But where there has been a valid patent upon the subject- matter of the trademark, different issues arise. In England it has been held that the fact that a plaintiff put a mark upon his goods with the addition of the words "trademark," when his mark was not registered, did not amount to such a misrepresentation as to deprive him of the right to an injunction, because the use of the words "trade- mark" did not necessarily carry with it the implication that the mark had been registered.^s .30— Sykcs V. Sykes, 3 B. & Cr. tion Co., 183 U. S. 1. 8; 46 L. Ed. ^^^- 40; reversing Rahtjen's Composi- 31 — Leather Cloth Co. v. Amer- tion Co. v. Holzapfel's Composi- ioan Leatlier Cloth Co., 11 Jur. X. tion Co., 41 C. C. A. 329, 101 Fed. S. 513; Cox, 688; 11 H. L. C. 343; Rep. 2.57, the latter reversing Cox, Manual, Case No. 223. Sec, Ralit.jen'a Composition Co. v. Holz- per contra, Stewart v. Smitlison, appel's Composition Co., 07 Fed. 1 Hilt. 110; Cox, 17.'). Tliis case Rep. 949. can not he regarded as of authority. 33 — Sen Sen Co. v. Britten. L. 32— Hol/.apfel's Composition Co. R. (1899) 1 Ch. D. 002. V. Rahtjen's American Composi- § 43] HOPKINS ON TKADEMARKS. 84 § 43. Use of such word as a trademark where there has been a patent.— The hist chiu.se of sec. 4901, Kcviscd Statutes of the Vnitotl States, dochiros tliat "cvory person wlio in any niainier marks n\Hm or atlixcs to any niipatentod artick' the word 'pat- ent,' or any word importintr tliat the same is patented, fi)r the purpose of decoivinp the pid)lie. sliall ])e liable for every .such offenee to a jienalty of not less than ^100, with costs; one- half of said penalty to the person who shall sue for the same, and the other to the use of the United States, to he recovered hy suit in any district court of the United States within whose jurisdiction such offense may have been committed." It is not an offense under this law to affix to an article the word "patented" and the date of an expired patent, for the reason that the offense is not complete, unless the mark affixed in- dicates that there is a present subsisting patent upon the article. ^^ In C lira rill r. Wnlkrr.^-' Jessel. M. R., observes with reprard to the effect of the use of the word "patent" by the plaintiff: "The (piestion was fully discussed in the case in the House of Lords. Leather Cloth Co. v. Awcricnv Lmthrr Cloth Co., 11 II. L. C 543,3'"' and I liave notliinjr to add to what was there .said. No doubt a man may \ise the word 'i)atent' so as to deceive no one. It may be used so as to mean that which was a patent, but is not .so now. Tn oth(; jrt L. .T. :\r.\. t\, r.Ht; .{(1 T, T i»:»S; Cirtm.ll, :\V,—Antr, 8 42. 85 WHAT ( ONSTI'I'ITKS A V\I,II> 'I l( \|)i;.\I \KK. f § "^3 "Hilt, fui'llicr, tm iiiiiri ciiii ciiiiiii a tradomark in a fal.sc- liood. It. is a J'jilsfliood to I'cpi-csfiit that the patent is still suhsistiiiff. '' And Kc'kewicli, J., said Jn re Adams' Trademarks: '•^' "The word '])at(Mit' means not necessarily that there is now current a patent of jjroteelion, but that the artiI..M \KKS. S() quired coiiliiU'iuM< in that particular lal»rl. and tin* confidoiu-e may linve pivcn n value to it whii-h the patentees may be en- titJcd to have after the expiration of their |)atent. " 111 another ease it uas ludd that where plaintiffs labeled their thread "Patent Thread," they would not be denied re- lief apainst an infringer, heeause the word "patent" by long usape had eome to denote tlie eharacter of the thread, and did not imply the existenee of any patent.'*" Of course the holder of letters patent may describe himself as "patentee" and his poods as "patented" even where he doubts the validity of the patent, and its validity has been questioned by others.^^ And it has been held in New York that one who applies for letters patent is not disentitled from relief apainst an infrinper liy reason of his deseribinp the goods as "patented" after his applieation had been filed, but before the issuance of letters patent. '= "Where the plaintiffs used their label l)earinp the words "sjieeially repistered trade- mark" after application, but before repistration. the Enplish Court of Appeals pranted an interlocutory injunction apainst an infrinper. but exjiressly said in their ojiinion that they re- frained from finally d<'ci(linp the (piestion whether that niis- rejiresentation prima fnric destroyed jilaintiff's ripht to pro- tection. ■*•' It will be seen, therefore, that the cases discussed in this and the next preccdinp section are for the preater part Enp- lish, and their rcasoninp is rather confused. The surest con- clusion to be reached 1)y an examination of the cases in this section i.s that of Lord Kinpsdown, in Morqnn v. McArlam: ** "Of course it would be better, and those Avho are inclined to act with scnipiilous honesty would take care, to ]Mit the date of their patent, which would obviate all difficulty, upon the articles which they desipnate as patented." Judpe Kohl.saat. in denyinp a motion for preliminary injiinction, based his de- cision uj)f)n the fact that the complainant, thouph not niark- 40— ^larnhnll v. Robh. L. R. 8 42— T-nuf.rly v. Whr.-li-r. 1'^ Fxj. Or.l: .30 L. .J. rii. 22r); 21 L. Ifow. Pr. 4S8; 11 Daly. 104. T X. B. 200; 17 W. R. lOftfl; Cox, 43— Road v. Richardson. 4r> L. T. Mnniial, f'aw No. 310. .'.4; C'artmcll. 281. 41— RIak.-y v. Latham, 85 L. T. 44-30 T.. J. Ch. 228; Cox. Man- (Journnl), 47. iial, No. 207. 87 WHAT CONSTITUTES A V\l,ll> TWAl »i;.M AKK. f § -^-^ \n'^ llif arliflc itscll' " pjitciitcd. " had issued circidars stating' thai if was patented, after the |»at('iit had expired. '•'• One who issues circulars oi- uses iiiarkintrs on nuu'chandisc falsely indicating tlic goods dealt in by iiiin to have been made under a particular patent will be enjoined at the instance of the owner of the patent."' Where there has been a patent, he who has manufactured a trademarkcd article under the patent during its lifetime, although he has lost the exclusive right to the use of the trademark upon the expiration of the patent, may yet enjoin one from using the mark upon an article not made according to the expired patent.^" Where the complainant had falsely advertised that the method of applying its name to silk dealt in by it was patented, a pre- liminary injunction against an infringer was refused because of the misrepresentation.'"^ § 44. The eflfect of expiration of the patent upon the collo- cation of color used in the patented article. — As we have else- where denu)nst rated '" color alone can not be appropriated as a trademark. It would seem clear, therefore, that the same prineijile which renders the trademark by Avhicli the patented article is known, juiblic ]iroperty upon the exjuration of the patent, would also give to the public at the .same time the right to reproduce the patented article with the same coloring which it had during the life of the patent. The trend of the de- cisions is in that direction. "The right to an exclusive trademark can only be acquired by its adoption for the very purpose of pointing to the origin or ownershij) of the article to Avhich it is attached, and must be designed to indicate the manufacturers or sellers, and to distinguish the article from like things made or sold by others. This elastic seam, having the natural color of the cotton yarn from which the fabric was made, Avas inserted in men's drawers made by the Scriven Company, because such an inserted piece 4") — Prcsprvalino Mfjr. Co. v. Hel- 47 — Sinjri'r Mf<.'. Co. v. Ilipplo, Icr Chemical Co., 118 Fed. Rop. 100 Fed. T?op. 1;V2. 103. 48— Stirlinf: Silk Mfp. Co. v. 46_Washburn & Moen ]Mfg. Co. Sterling Silk Co., 46 Atl. Rep. 199, V. Haish, Fed. Case No. 17217. 59 N. J. Eq. 394. 49— See § 114, post. 45] HOPKINS ON TKAI^KMAUKS. 88 constitntoil n struoturnl difTcrencc ponstitutiiifr tlio iiivcntiun roviTotl by tlio monopoly of \\\c patent. As assi^rrirrs of tlio jiattMit, no one else i-ould insert siu-h an clastic scam without infringement. But when the j)atent expiicd the public was free to use it. To give that inserted strip, with or without its inartifieial color, the effect of a tradeuuirk thereafter woidd be, in effect, to exteiul the numopoly of the i)ateut. That others may make and sell drawers constructed accordiii}; to the design of the patent is not denied ; the contention being that the elastic seam shall not be of the color used by Scriven. But. as that color is not an artificial color, Scriven has no monopoly. The color of the strip in the drawers sold by the defendants has not been artificially produced, but is shown to be the natural color of undyed and unbleached cotton yarn from which the strip is made. We may therefore dismiss the claim that the Scriven Company has established a trade- mark in the color of the inserted jnece. " •''•" § 45. Names of patented articles. — The general rule as to the mime applied to a j)atented article during the life of the patent, is that ui)on the expiration of the patent, the i)ublic acquires the right to make, use, and sell the patented article, and to distinguisli it ])y the name which it bore during the life of the jiatent.^^ Strattoii, 12 Fed. Ko]i. (■-•Ui-TOO; (loocl- yi'iir RublHT Co. v. Day, 22 Fed. l\rp. 44; SinpiT Mffr. Co. v. Riley, 11 Fed. Rep. 706; Whcclor &. Wil- son Mfg. Co. V. iSliakoapear, 39 L, J. Ch. 36; Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Boyington, Fed. Cas. No. 14220; Off. CJaz. 45.5; Filley v. Child. 1« Rlatchf. .*l7«i; Fed. Case No. 4787; Ralph V. Taylor. L. R. 25 Ch. D. 104; T.inoh'uni Mfg. Co. v. Nairn. 7 Ch. D. S.U; Young v. Macrae, Jur. N. S. 322 ; In re Palmer'H Trad.-- mark, 24 Cli. D. 504 ; In re Leonard A KIHh' Trademark, 2(5 Ch. 1). 288; Singer Mfg. Co. v. June, 41 Fed. i;.p. 208; Hrill V. Singer Mfg. Co.. 41 Ohio St. 127; 52 Am. Rep. 74; Hiram Holt Co. v. Wadsworth, 41 50 — Newcomer & Lewis v. Scriven Co., 108 Fed. Rep. 021, 024, 04 C. C. A. 77. .•il — Fairbanks v. .Tacobus, Fed. Case No. 4008, 14 Blatehf. 337; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Stanage, G Fed. Rep. 270; Adee v. Peck Hroa. & Co., 30 ^-ed. Rep. 200; Sin;:er Mfg. Co. v. .lune, 1()3 U. S. 100; 41 L. Ed. 118; (reverhing Singe protected as such. A patentee can not "give to liis machine a word that is descriptive only, and thereby acfpiire a monopoly in the use of that word.""'-^ in the leading case upon this subject, Mr. Justice White, speakinp: for the United States Supreme Court, explained the reason of the rule as follows: "It is self-evident that on the exj)ii-a1iori of a palciit the mon()])oly created by it ceases to exist, and the i-i<,'lit to make the tiling formerly covered by the patent becomes public proi)erty. It is upon this condition that the patent is granted. It follows, as a matter of course, that on the termination of the patent there ])asses to the ])ublic the right to make the machine in the form in which it was con- structed during the |)atent. AVe may therefore dismiss with- out further commeiit the complaint, as to the form in Avhich the defendant made his machines. It ecpially follows from the cessation of the monopoly and the falling of the patented de- vice into the domain of things })ublic, that along Avith the pub- lic ownership of the device there must also necessarily pass to the public the generic designation of the thing which has arisen during the monopoly, in conseqiience of the designa- tion having been acquiesced in by the owner, either tacitly, by accepting the benefits of the monopoly, or expressly, by his having so coiniected the name with the machine as to lend Fed. Rep. 34; Coats v. Merrick C. A. 127 : Centaur Co. v. Marshall. Thread Co.. 36 Fed. Rep. 324; Cen- !)7 Fed. Rep. 78.1; 38 C. C. A. 413, taur Co. V. Heinsfurter, 84 Fed. affirming. Centaur Co. v. Marshall. Rep. 9.55; 28 C. C. A. 581; Loril- 1)2 Fed. Rep. 605; Warren Feather- lard V. Pride, 28 Fed. Rep. 434; bone Co. v. American Featherbone Gaily V. Colt's Patent Fire Arms Co., 72 C. C. A. 571; Ml Fed. Rep. Mfg. Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 118; Dover 513; B. B. Hill Co. v. Sawver-Bosa Stampin-: Co. v. Fellows, 163 Mf;:. Co., 112 Fed. Rep. 144; Whann Mass. 101; 47 Am. St. Rep. 448; v. Whann. 116 La. 600. 41 So. Rep. Centaur Co. v. Robinson. 01 Fed. 38; Rlc<'-Stix Dry Ooods Co. v. Rep. 880; Centaur Co. v. Xeathery, Scriven Co.. 165 Fed. Rep. 630, 01 01 Fed. Rep. 801; 34 C. C. A. 118, C. C. A. 475; Hujrhes v. Alfred followed in Centaur Co. v. Rein- H. Smith Co.. 205 Fed. Rep. 311. ecke, 34 C. C. A. 684, 01 Fed. Rep. 52— Willard, J., in Keeper Refrip- 1001; Centaur Co. v. Hufihes Bros. erator Co. v. Wliite Enamel Refrip- Mfg. Co., 91 Fed. Rep. 901; 34 C. erator Co., 178 Fed. Rep. 567. § 45] HOPKINS O.V TRADEMAKKS. 00 countenance to tlic resultiiip dedication. To sny otherwise would be to hold that, althoii^'h tlic jiiihlic hud ucquil'ed the dovifo held hy tlic palent. yet the owner dl" tlie patent or the niainifai-tiirer of the j)atentetl thing had retained the desig- nated name which was essentially necessary to vest the public with the full enjoyment of that which has become theirs by the disai)j)carance of the monoixily. In other words, that the patentee or mainifactunr could take the benefit and advan- tage of the patent upon the condition that at its termination the monoixtly should cease, and yet when the end was reached disregard the public dedication and j)raetieally perpetuate indefinitely an exclusive right. "The public having the right on the exjuration of the pat- ent to make the patented article and to use its generic name, to restrict this use, either by preventing its being placed upon the articles when manufactured, or by using it in advertise- ments or circulars, would be to admit the right and at the same time destroy it. It follows, then, that the right to use the name in every form passes to the public with the dedica- tion resulting from the expiration of the patent. "\or is this rif?ht governed by different principles where the name, which has become generic, instead of being an ar- bitrary one. is the surname of the patentee or original maniir faeturer. " "^ There appear.^ to be an exception to this general rule where the use of the name antedates the existence of the patent, •'•* particnlai-ly where it further appears that the name and not the patent gave its value to the article.'"'^ In accordance with the jjeneral rule, the Patent Office has declined to register a ^ti-ademark which is the name of a pat- ente»l article,'"' even in association \\itli an arbifrary symbol ; "^^ .').3 — Singer Mfpr. Co. v. .Tnin- Mf^'. iinjmti-iitrd clcnunt." Buffalo Co.. Ifi.T U. S. ion, IR.'): 41 L. V.<\. Sprciiilty ("o. v. Van d.-.-f. 227 Fod. 118. 12 J. ^ R'p. .*«!M (C. C. A. 7), 142 C. C. .'»4 — AvpTiariiifl v. Korrn-ly, 1M9 A. 87. WiB. 247, 121 N. W. Rt-p. 33(1. m—Fx parte Velvril Co., Ltd., 84 fi.'V— Bntrlioll.r V. Tlic.niKon. 3.'") C. Off. C.a/.. 807. ('. A. 5.32. 03 Fc-d. H<-p. «nn, MCy. f)?— Wj? pnWr Iloloplianr CIuhh Co, TliuH tin* nilf do«H not apply to 100 Off. fJaz. 4.')n; A't />flr^ Kiirnum •'tln! pre-exiHtin^' tradftiumc of one & Co., 18 Off. Gaz. 412. 91 WHAT CONSTITUTES A VAMI) 'IK \l)i:.\l \Iiration of the eopyi-i;,rht, is purely a matter of the application of the rules of unfair eompetition."^ The right to the use of the name |)asses to the public upon the expiration of tiic eo|)yri^dit, but injunctive relief will be granted against tlie passing off of a reprint as and for the pro- duction of the original publishers under the copyright."*' §46. Generic term, defined. — By "generic term" (Latin, genus, gener; French, genre) is meant a term which may not be ai)propriated as a trademark because it is too general and comprehonsivc in its meaning to become the monopoly of an individual in application to merchandise. The word in its proper signification includes the use of geographical names, proper names, and descriptive words, used in commerce. It is a matter of regret tliat the courts have not defined these several phrases in their i-elations to eacli other, but such is the fact. The correctness of the author's definition is clearly es- tablished by analysis of the three classes of words and the reasons -why they are not sustained as trademarks. We will examine them in their order. (a) Geographical names. — Mr. Jnstice Strong has said: "It must be considered as a sound doctrine that no one can apply the name of a district or country to a well-known article of commerce, and obtain thereby such an exclusive right to the application as to prevent others inhabiting the district, or deal- 65— Johnson v. Seaman, lOS A. '42:1; 10 L. "R. A. (X.R.) Fed. Rep. 051, 48 C. C. A. 158: re- 540; E. B. Estes & Sons v. vorsin;: Seaman v. Johnson, 106 CJeorpe Frost Co., 176 Fed. Rep. Fed. Rep. 915. .-i.-JS; 100 C. C. A. 258; G. & C. 66 — Hiram Holt Co. v. Wads- Merriam Co. v. Oyilvie, 170 Fed. Avorth, 41 Fed. Rep. 34. Rep. 107; 05 C. C. A. 42.3; 0. & 67— See post, § 8.".. C. Merriam Co. v. Saal field, 100 68- Ogilvie v. G. & C. Merriam Fed. Rep. 027; 117 C. C. A. 245; Co., 140 Fed. Rep. 858; modified same v. Syndicate Pub. Co., 307 in G. & C. ISIerriam Co. v. Ogilvie, Fed. Rep. 515; 125 C. C. A. 177; 159 Fed. Rep. 638; 95 C. C. 237 U. S. 618; 59 L. Ed. 1148. § 46] HOPKINS ON' TR.VDRMARKS. 94 inp in similar articles comiii^r I'roiu tlif district, from truth- fully usiuj; the same dcsi^jnatiou.'" "" In our further exaniiii ation of the use of (jeoj^raphieal names in trade, we will liiul that they are never properly sustained as teehnieal trademarks except where they are used hy one who is the sole owner of the entire locality to which the name is applied. In such a case the geograjthical name has ceased to be generic, because one person has the sole and exclusive right of trade or manu- facture in the locality. Thus the author reasons that geo- graphical names are f)rdiiuirily generic, and whenever they are held not to be valid trademarks it is because they are generic. Of course the general rule does not ajiply to words which in their primary and ordinary signiticance are not geograjih- ical. So it has been held that the word "Keystone'" is a valid technical trademark although used as an appellation for the state of Pernsylvania."" (h) Proper names. — The eminent English barrister, Mr. Se- bastian, has said in his work on trademarks that "a name is in its very nature generic, and is properly applied to designate, not one individual in the world, but, it may be, many thou- sands, to all of whom it is equally appropriate."'' (r) Dcscripfirr words have always been understood to come within the category of generic terms; indeed. Mr. Browne in his treatise npon the subject has defined "generic names" to be "names merely descriptive of an arti<'le of trade, of its qualities, ingredients or characteristics. " '- The United States Supreme Court has held that there can be no technical trade- mark right in words used to denote class, grade, style, quality, ingredients or characteristics."'' It is apparent, therefore, that the definition of generic terms which we have adopted is scientifically exact, including noth- 0!) — Dchiwurr & HikIhoii ( uriul 71 — Scluistian on 'riadcniarks Co. V. Clark, 1.3 Wall. (SO U. S. ) (4th cd.), p. 2:<. 311327; 20 L. Ed. '>81. Followed 72 — Rrowiic on Iiii.l. marks (2d in Gfiiftuwe Salt Co. v, Hurnap, 07 «'d.), § l.'{4. F<-d. Rep. .'>34; aflirnud in f;«'n«-8s<'«' 73— Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. Salt Co. V. Ilurnap, 20 C. C. A. 27; 311-322; 20 I.. Kd. .'iSl; Lawn-nc 73 F«-d. Rc'p. 818. MfK- Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 138 70— Buzl.y V. Davirt, 80 C. C. A. U. S. .'■)37-r)48; 34 L. Ed. 997. 103; \r,0 Fed. Kep. 275, 277. 95 WHAT CONSTITIJTKS A VVt-ll) TKADK.M AlCK. [§•!♦) ing more nor loss than tho woi-ds wliifli aro not subject to ex- clusive appropriation as trademark, because they can not be so approi)riated "to the advancement of the business interests of any particular individual, firm or comi)any. The inability to malce such appropriation of them arises out of the circum- stance that, on account of their general or poj)ular use, every individual in tlie community has an equal ri<,'ht to use them, and that i-ight is in all cases paramount to the ri{,'hts and interests of any jjcrsoii.""* A geiuM-ic or descriptive word can not be made a valid trade- mark by misspelling it (as, for example, "Kid Nee Kure," ap- plied to a medicine),"^ or by printing it in letters from the alphabet of a f()reii:.M AKKS. 96 tide ma.v l>o dosoriptivo wlion applied to anntlior. Tf it is 5?o apt and Ic^jitinuitoly sitrnificant of some (piality (tl' the article to wliii'h it is soiijrlit to be api)lied that its exclusive eoncession to one person wouhl tend to restrict others from properly de- serihiu}; their own siniihir articles, it can not be the subject of a monopoly. On the otluM- hand, if it is merely su}?};estive, or figurative only, it may be a ^'ood trademark, notwithstand- ing it is also indirectly or remotely descri|)tive." ^" Thus the word "Teller" is a valid trademark for safes, though "of a suggestive character." ^' and so of "Roof Leak," for li(iuiil rooting [Kiint or coating.^- "One may make a trade- mark out of a name or jihrase wliieh has some element of sug- gestion about it."'^'' While tlie following is an extract from a judicial argument delivered by a court in a futile attem]>t to justify its decree sustaining as a trademark a geographical word to which the plaintiff had no color of exclusive right, it is still a lucid ex- l)osition of the principle under consideration: "Words and names having a known or established signification can not within the limits of such .specification be exclusively appro- priated to the advancement of the business purposes of any particular individual, firm or company. The inability to make such appropriation of them arises out of the circumstance that on account of their general or popular use every individual in the community has an equal right to use them, and that riglit is ill all cases jjaramount to the rights and interests of any one person, firm or company. "What alike may be claimed and used by all can not be exclusively approju-iated to advance the interests of any person. Numerous cases have been before the courts in wliieh this limitation upon the use of words and names as trademarks has been maintained and established, and no good 7'eason can he given for (juestioning or impeaching their conclusions. But while this limitation is entirely reasoimble, there can be no propriety in ext(Miding it beyond the eircum- fitance upon which it is founded; and accordingly any member ftO_Bonnctt v. ^rcKinl.-v. Or. F. d. fi2— Elliott ViirniHli Co. v. RoarH, ■R«'p. .')0.'); 13 r. (". A. 2."). TJoi'linck & Co.. 221 Kid. Rrp. 707. ftl_Autf.mati<- Rcccnlin^' Safe R.I— T^om-. .T.. in Cliiti.in SiickH To. V. Bank.TB' Rcj;. Safe Co.. 221 Mf^. C-. x. ll.-iull.r Cr.ani.Ty Co., Fed. R«'i). r,on, .-.11. 2.11 l-Vd. Hep. r..-)0, G.'.l. ^" WFIAT CONS'IITIITK.S A V\(.ll) IKADKMAHK. [§4G of the community whoso intorosts and business may be pro- moted by doing so, should be at liberty to apply even names and words in common use to the i)roducts of his industry, in such a manner as to indicate their origin or i)articular manu- facture, where such application wj-Il not intreiicli upon and be in no way included in their use by tiu! public. By doing so, the rights of no member of tiie community can be in any manner infringed, and no public inconvenience whatever can be occasioned by it. The public will still be left at full liberty to use such words or terms as tiiey were used before; while for a special purpose a new office or purj^ose may be imposed upon them. "In cases of that description no greater inconvenience or embarrassment can be found in protecting parties in the en- joyment of the new use or purpose engrafted upon a popular term than has been found in extending that protection to the case of a Avord created for the occasion." ^4 (e) Laudatory adjectives.— The rule as to adjectives claimed as trademarks has thus been stated in a recent English ease: "As pointed out by Lord Justice Moulton in the Perfection Case (26 R. P. C. 858), the quality of distinctiveness may be inherent in the word itself, but in cases where this is not the case the quality may be acquired by the mode in Avhich it has been used and applied in the market. The question in reality is; what amount of credence is to be given to evidence tend- ing to prove that a particular word prima facie descriptive only has acquired the quality of distinctiveness in reference to the particular goods? It is impossible to believe that or- dinary laudatory epithets can by any amount of user acquire the quality of distinctiveness. On the other hand, there may be descriptive words so indeterminate in meaning, or so rare and unusual as applied to the particular goods, that the Tri- bunal may without difficulty accept the statement that they have been so used as to denote the goods of a particular trader."'-"' While this decision was rendered under the English Trademark Act, it embodies the rule under which adjectives have been con- 84 — Newman v. Alvord. 40 Barb. S.l — \V. X. Sharpc, Ltd. v. Solo- 588. mon Bros., 31 R. P. C. 441, 450. §47] lUM'KINS ON TRAPEMAKKii. OS dexunod fts tnuleumrks in the illustrative American cases in the next section. §47. Illustrations of generic terms. — In the followinf; in- stani'cs the winds aiul marks uK'Mtii)iit'd have been held to be invalid as trademarks because peneric ; beinp peopraphical or descriptive. The examples arc arraii^rcd in aljihalx'tical order for convenient reference. Claimul us Trad^^mark. "A. C. A.," "Acid Phosphate." "Alleoek's Porous Plas- ters," "Aluminum," "Always Closed," "American." "American." "America Strength." "Ammoniated Hone Super phosphate of Lime," " An«rlo-Portupo. " "Angostura," " Anticjuarian." "Api^le and Honey," 86 — AmoHkcaf.' Mfp. Co. v. Trnin- «T, 101 U. S. .51; 2.'-> L. K«l. nit.t. 87 — Rumfonl Chcm. WDrks v. Muth. .3r» F«'d. Rep. .')24. 88— /n re Brandroth, L. R. Ch. D. 018. 80 — Ann'rican Washboard Co. v. Saginaw Mfy. Co., 10.3 K.d. Rep. 28 1, 4:i C. C. A. 23.3. no — Van Kannel Rcvoh iii;; Dour Co. V. AnnTioan Revolviii;,' Dnor Co., IS.'i C. C. A. 4.39; 21 fl Fed. Rep. .'>82 (C. C. A. 7). ni — In re American Sardine Co., .3 Off. Caz. 4!t.'>. 02 — American Wine Co. v. Kolil man, l.'iS F<(l. Rep. 8.30; lint cum pure Hiiniilt'iti Hrown .SIhm; Co. v. Cla.ss of Goods. cloth.»« medicinal preparation.*^ medicated plasters.**® wa-shboards.**" revolving doors. **" sardines.'" wine."2 coflFee and spices.^^ fertilizer."^ oysters."^ bitters."" book-store."^ medicine."'' Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U. S. 2.')1 ; CO L. Kd. — . 03 — In re Meyer Bros. CotTee &. Spice Co., 32 App. D. C. 277. 04 — Allefjheny Fertilizer Co. v. Wo*^d8ide. 1 Tlu-lies. IIT); Fed. Case No. 200. 05 — In re Saunion & Co., Sell. 02.'); Cox, Manual. 02."). no— Sie<:ert v. Findlater. L. R. 7 ; Cli. D. 801 ; Cox. "Manual, .^lOl ; Sie- ^'ert V. C.andolfi, 140 Fed. Rop. 100; 70 (". C. A. 142; reverHinj; s. c. i:t!t Krd. Rep. 017. 07— Chtiynski v. Colim. :t'.l Cul. .-.(11. 08- Ax iiorff (i. V. Ilciilil.in & Bro., 87 Oir. (Jaz. 170. 99 WHAT CONaXITUTES A VAI.ID TK AKK.M AUK. ( 'lass of (iou'ls. [§47 Claimed as Trademark. "A Red or Other Distinc- tively Colored Streak Ai)j)Iied To or Woven In u Wire Rope," "Asbestos," "Asbestos," "Astral," "Balm of Thousand Flowers," "Barber's Model," "Bazaar," "Better Than Mother's," "Birdsboro Tnip Rock," "Black Caps," "Black Capsules," "Black Package," "Bohemian," "Book," "Borax," "Braided Fixed Stars," no — A. Lcsclxn & Sons Rope Co. V. Brodcrick & Bascom Rope Co., i;54 Fed. Rep. 571; 67 C. C. A. 418. 1 — Johnson v. Brandau, 32 App. D. C. 348. 2 — Asbestos & Asbetic Co. v. Wm. Sclater Co., 18 Rap. Jud. Que. C. S. 3fi0. 3— Pratt's Mfg. Co. v. Astral Re- fining Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 492-494. 4 — Fetridge v. Wells, Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 180. 5 — Ex parte Knisius Bros., 82 Off. Oaz. 1087. f>— McCall V. Theal. 28 Grant (Up. Can.) Ch. 48. 7 — Ex parte Ervin A. Rice Co., 83 Off. Gaz. 1207. wire rope.®® shoes. ^ wall plastcr.2 oil.3 cosmetic* razors.'' patterns for clothing.^' mince meat.' stone.^ medicine." transparent capsules con- taining dark medicine.'" tea." beer. ' 2 the device of a book, used by a publisher. '3 soap.' ' cigar lights.'^ 8 — Tolin T. Dyer Co. v. Schuyl- kill Stone Co., 185 Fed. Rep. 557. 9 — In re Safety Remedy Co., 35 App. D. C. 353. >10 — Planten v. Canton Pharmacy Co., .•].•? App. D. C. 2r.8. 11— Fischer v. Blank, 138 X. Y. 244. 12 — American Brewing Co. v. Bienvilh' Brewery, 153 Fed. Rep. 61.5. 13 — Merriam v. Famous Shoe &, Clothing Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 411. 14 — Dreydoppel v. Young, 14 IMiila. 226; Am. Tr. Case No. 70. Prive & Steuart, p. 423. 15— /ji re Palmer, L. R. 24; Cli. D. ,504. Ul liOl'KINS ON TK.VDKM.VKKS. 100 Claimed as Tradvmurk. "Hrassiore," "Brilliant," **Cachemire Milano. " "California Synij) of Figs," "C. A. P.," "Car Advertising Co.," "(^astorin."" "Celebrated ytumach Bit- ters," "Cellular," "Centennial," "Cherry Peetoral," "Chill Stop," "Chlorodyne, " Ki — C'liai*. K. DeBevoise Co. v. H. & \V. Co., GO Atl. lU'p. 407. 17 — SaiHTs Milling Co. v. Kch- lor Flour Mills Co., 39 App. D. C. MS. 18— /n re Warburg. 13 Off.Gaz.44. 11» — Wordrn & Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U. S. 515; 47 L. Ed. 282; rt-viTsing Wor- drn V. California Fig Syrup ( ()., 102 F»'d. Krp. 334; 42 C. C. A. 383; California Fig Syrup Co. V. Tutnam, 60 F»'d. Rt'p. 750; anirmc(liciiie.'" i-ream acid plio.sphate,^^ corporate name.^^ medicine. -- bitters.2'5 cloth of cellular construe- tion.2^ medals.^'^ medicine.-" medicine.-' medicinal compound.^® 20 — Provid«'nt Clicmical Works V. Canada Clu-mical Mfg. Co., 2 Ont. Law. Ki'p. IS2. 21 — Car Advertising Co. v. New York City Car Advertising Co., 107 N. Y. S. 547; 57 Misc. Rep. 105. 22 — Centaur Co. v. Robinson, 91 Fed. Rep. 880; C.-ntuur Co. v. Neathery, 34 C. C. A. 118; 91 Fed. Rep. S!tl; Centaur Co. v. Hughes Bros. .Mfg. Co.. 34 C. C. A. 127; 91 Fed. Rep. 901; Centaur Co. v. Link, 62 N. J. Kq. 147 ; 49 Atl. Rep. 828. 2.3— Ilostetter v. Adams, 20 Hlatehf. 320; 1(> I'.d. K.-p. 838. 24— Cellular Clotliing Co. v. Maxton, L. R. (IS'i'.h A. C. .326. 2.">— Hartill v. Niiuy. Fed. Case No. 01. ".8. 20— Ay.r v. Husiiton. 7 Daly, 9. 27 — Kx parte Hanee Bros. & Wliit2 — Eli'ctro St4'<'l Co. v. Lindiii- Iktk St«'<'l Co., 43 App. I). C. 270. r>.3 — IlIinoJH \Vat<'li Caw Co. v. KIj;in Nat. Watch Co., 94 Fi-d. H.-p. r)— Black V. Ehrioh, 44 Fed. Rep. 793. .'>6— /m re Ald.-n. If) Off. Gaz. 389. .')7 — Scars & Nichols Co. v. Brake- Icy. 3S Apj). 1). C. r)30. r)S — Ex piirtr Hroii,>2 — /■/'x parte Brand Stove Co., — H.-lmhold V. H.lml.old Mfg. Co., .'•.3 How. Pr. 4.".3. 00^ — Sherwood v. Andrews, 3 .Xm. Law Reg. N. S. 588. 105 ^V1IA'1' (ONSTITL'TIOS A VAMD 'IK ADKM AltK. [§47 Claimed as Trademark. "IIonieoi)atliic ^ledi- cines, ' ' "ITunyadi." " Ilydro-Rromo Soda Mint," "Hygienic," "Imperial," "Indurated Fibre," "Instantaneous," "International Banking Co.," * * Inter-phone, ' ' "Iron Bitters," "Ironstone," "Johnson's American Ano- dyne," " Juh'enne," "Kaiser," "KEEPCLEAN," 97 — Hiimphrey's Spec. Homeo- pathic Med. Co. V. Wcnz, 14 Fed. "Rep. 250. 98 — SaxleliiitT v. Wagner, S.") C. C. A. 321; l.-)7 Fed. Eep. 745; af- firmed. Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U. S. 375; 54 L. Ed. 525. 99— Ex parte Spayd, 86 Off. Gaz. 631. 1 — Jaro9 Hygienic Underwear Co. V. Fleece Hygienic Underwear Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 022 ; s. c, 65 Fed. Rep. 424. 2 — Beadleston &, Woerz v. Cooke Brewing Co., 20 C. C. A. 405; 74 Fed. Rep. 229. 3 — Indurated Fibre Co. v. Amos- keag Indurated Fibre Ware Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 695. 4 — Rennet v. McKinley. 65 Fed. Rep. 505; 13 C. C. A. 25. Class of Goods. description of articles so called."' mineral water."" medicine."'' underwear,* beer.2 wood-pulp products,^ tapioca prepared for speedy cooking.^ as name of banking con- cern.'' telephone switching appa- ratus.'' bitters containing iron.'' water pipe.* liniment.® soup.*" beer.** toilet brushes.* 2 .')— Kohler v. Sanders, 122 X. Y. 65; affirming s. c, 48 Hun. 48. 6 — In re Western Electric Co., 39 App. D. C. 420. 7 — Brown Chem. Co. v. Stearns, 37 Fed. Rep. 36; Brown Chem. Co. V. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540; Cox, Manual, 726; 35 L. Ed. 247. 8— In re Rader, 13 Off. Gaz. .596. 9— /n re Johnson, 2 Off. Gaz. 315. 10— Godillot V. Hazzard, 81 N. Y. 263. 11 — Luyties v. Hollender, 30 Fed. Rep. 632. Per contra, see Kaiser- brauerei v. Baltz Brewing Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 695; affirmed in J. & P. Baltz Brew. Co. v. Kaiserbrauerei, Beck & Co., 20 C. C. A. 402; 74 Fed. Rep. 222. 12 — Florence Mfg. Co. v. Dowd, 171 Fed. Rep. 122; 178 Fed. Rep. 73; 101 C. C. A. 565 (C. C. A. 2). §47] UOlKlNt. UN TIWPKMAKKS. lOG Claimed as Trademark. "KtMitiK'ky Chib." "Kid Nee Kurr, " " Kidney & Liver," *■ Lackawanna." "Lake.- *" La Nonnandi." "Liohiji's Extract of Meat," "Tjiewtenaiit James' Horse lilister." "Linoleum." "Loch Katrine," "London Siiop, " "Majrnolia," "Mailed Milk," "Marshall's (Vlebrated," "Marshall Erecting," 13 — DavifH County l)i8tillin<; Co. V. Martinoni, 117 Fed. Rep. 186. 14 — Ex parte Ilciuh'rson, 8.') Off. r.az. 453. l.V— SpjekiT V. Lasli, 102 Cal. 38; 36 Pac. R«'p. 302. 16 — Dt'lawan- & lludsini t'anal C-o. V. Clark, 13 Wall. 311; 2(» L. Kd. 581. 17 — StokeH V. Land^^raff, 17 Barb. 608; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 137. 18— StaclH-UMTK V. Ponce. 12K l^ K. 686; 32 L. Ed. .')6it ; Hllirmin;.' 23 F«-d. Kep. 430. 1»— I.i.-I.i^r-H Kxtract of M.at Co. (Ltd.) V. Ilanl.iiry. 17 I,. T. N. S. 298; AnderHon v. Lieliiji'H K.\tra ■whiskey.-- trading:: luime.-'* alloy metal. -^ infants' food.^^ lininient.'-" engines.2" 20— .James v. .lames, L. R. 13 Kq. 421; 41 L. J. Ch. 353; 20 L. T. N. S. 568; 20 W. R. 434; Seb. 388. 21 — Linoleum Mfp. Co. v. Nairn, L. R. 7 Ch. 1). 834; 47 L. J. Cli. 4.30; 38 L. T. N'. S. 448; 2(i \V. I J. 4r.3; Seh. .-)36. 22— Hulloeh. Lade & Co. v. Cray, lii Jour. Juris. 218; Seb. 4.V2. 23— Rosenthal v. Blatt (X. J. Ch.). H3 Atl. Rep. 3S7. 24 — Matt V. Fiiidlixtrr, L. R. 17 Kq. 20: 43 L. J. C"h. f)4; 2i> L. T. N. S. 44H; 22 \V. U. M; Scl.. 4:J1. 40 — Ault 4 Wyhor-r Co. v. Clu'S- hiro. IHI Fed. Ucp. 741. 47— Hardy v. CutU-r, :\ OIT. flaz. 4C8. 48 — All'-n H. WriHlt-y Co. v. Iowa Soap Co., 104 F«d. Hop. MS; Allen B. Wrihlcy Co. v. Iowa Soap Co., no C. C. A. M; 122 Fed. lUp. lOfi. 40— Watt V. O'Hanlon. 4 T. R. 1. .riO— K.ntuoky DiHtillcri.-H 4 Ware- liouw Co. V. Old I^'xin^ion Club Dint. Co.. :n App. 1). C. 22:i. .'•1— HinnJnuiT v. WattlcH, 28 H<.w. I'r. 200. :>'l—Ex parte (»liv.- W li.-.l Co., H4 Off. Gaz. 1871. Class of (loods. stout. '•• cleansin}; preparation.*' whiskey.^' soap.** ■wiiiskey.''" Avhiskey.'"' pin.'"^* bieyeles havinp: olive-col- ored franies."'""- flour.'"^ typewriter supplies." cosmetic lotion. ^'^ coal.'"' oil.-'" pame. invalid because a mere variation of the Ilin- doostanee name for the same pame.^^ l)ills.-'*' medicine."" -..3— II. R.'ckor 4 Co. v. C. A. C.ainl.rill Mf^'. Co., .38 App. D. C. .■>3."). .')4 — Iti re Cn>8cent Typf\vrit App. D. C. 118. 50 — Esseylstyn v. Ilolmos, 114 Pac. Rep. 118; 42 Mont. ;)()7. r)7 — Youn;,' V. Macrae, 9 Jur. N. S. 322. ;-,S— Sclfliow V. Cliaircc 4 St'lohow Mf;r. Co., 132 Fed. Rep. !»00; appeal diHrniKKcd. 72 C. C. A. «i83; 140 Fed. Rep. !>8<.t. For tlie preliminary or- der, we lis F.d. Rep. 1023. .-,72; Same v. MeKwen, :{5 Par. Rep. 8.54 ; Same v. Crystal Soda \Vati>r Co.. Id. 855; Same v. Steinke. lil.. 855; Same v. ITaake, Id., 855; Sanir V. LilH-rty Soda Works Co., Id., 85(5. Class of Goods. cement.''' hrwslies. hri.stles set in rub- l)cr.-' w atci'pi'dot" footing'."'' licjiior.''' cx{)h)sive powder.'*" filter.»» tonics- starch and soap.**^ boots and shoes.** liquor.**^ tires.**" mackerel.'*^ cartridges.**^ cigars.'*" 83— /w re Meyerstein, 7 R. P. C. 114; L. R. 4.3 Ch. 1). (504; .50 L. .T. Ch. 401; 62 L. T. .52(5; .38 \V. R. 440; Cartmell, 225. 84 — J-Jx parte Kriu'liani. 20 OtT. C.az. 891. 85 — Wolf.' V. Coiiiar.l. IS How. Pr. 04; Seh. 171>; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 220; Burke v. Cassin, 45 Cal. 407: Wolfe V. Hart. 4 V. L. R. Eq. 125; Wolfe V. Alsop, 1(1 V. L. U. K<|. 41; 12 V. L. R. 421; WOlfe v. Laii;:, Li y. L. R. 752. 80— BulTalo ItuLl-.r l^Ifj;. Co. v. Batavia KviI.Imt Co.. 15.3 N. Y. S. 77!t. 87 — Trask Fish Co. \. Wooster, 28 Mo. Api). 408. 88 — TNiiiehester Rei)eatinK Arms Co. V. Peters C«rtri(l<,'e Co., .30 App. I). C. 505. SO — (A stock hilirl ease). Sar- tor V. Seluiden. lOl N W. Rep. 511; 125 Iowa. 000. Ill WHAT CONSTITUTES A VAI-ID TRADEMARK. [§47 Claimed as Tradenmrk. "Shredded Whole Wheat," "Singer," "Siiowflake," "Somatose," "Spearmint," "Splendid," "Stajre," "Standard," "Standard A,' "Star," "Steel Shod," "Sterlinjr," "Stoga Kip," " Straight-Cut,' Wil- 90— Natural Food Co. Hams, 30 App. D. C. 348. ni — Sinjicr Mfjr. Co. v. Junf Mi>. Co., 163 U. S. 100; 41 L. Ed. 118. 02 — Larrabeo v. Lev.ie, 07 Ga. 561 ; 44 Am. Rep. 735. 93— Farbcn-fal)rikcn T. 'M. K., 7 R. P. C. 430; L. R. (1804) 1 Ch. 645. 04— \Vm. Wrifjley, Jr., & Co. v. Grove Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 885; af- firmed in 183 Fed. Rep. 00; 105 C. C. A. 301 (C. C. A. 2). See also Wm. Wrin;ley, Jr., & Co. v. Xorris, 34 App. D. C. 138. Qb—Ex parte Stokes, 04 OlT. Ga/. 437. 96— United States Playinj,' Card Co. V. C. M. Clark Pub. Co., 30 App. D. C. 208. Claas of Goads. cereal product."" sewing machines, after ex- piration of the Singer I)atents.'" crackers, the word heing descriptive of the quality of flour used."- meat extract, from the Greek, "soma," Angl. "body," genitive, ' * somatos. ' ' "•'^ chewing gum flavored with spearmint."' flour.s"' playing cards.^*' ])hon()grai)hs."" cigars."* condensed milk."" shoes having soles quilted with steel wire.^ ale.2 boots.3 cigarettes.^ 07 — In re National Phonograpli Co., 20 Api). D. C. 142. 08— A'j- parte Cohn (1), 16 Off. Gaz. 680. 00 — Michif,'an Condensed ^lilk Co. V. Kenneweg Co., 30 App. I). C. 401. 1 — Breniian v. Emery-Bird-Thay- er Dry Goods Co., 00 Fed. Rep. 071; s. c. io8 Fed. Rep. 624; 47 C. C. A. 532. 2 — Worcester Br«'wing Corp. v. Renter & Co., 84 C. C. A. 665; 157 Fed. Rep. 217. 3— Walker v. Reid, Fed. Case No. 17,084. 4 — Ginter v. Kinney, 12 Fed. Rep. 782. §47] IIOI'KINS ON TKAHF-MARKS. 112 Claimed as Tradcwark. "Stud." "Sveiiska Snusnuniiini.set," "Sweet Lotus. "Swiu}:." "Syphon." "TAHASrO." "Taffy Tolu," "Ta.steless," "Thermopene," "Thomsonian," "Timekeeper," "Tipo," "ToothaeheGum," "Traveler's." "Trophy," "Tyeoon." "Tueker Spring," .f) — flrcrnc. Twffd & Co. v. Manu- fac-tur.rs' H.lt Il.x.k Co., IfiS Fod. Rep. 640. 6 — Boland.r v. I'.lcrson. I'M) 111. 215. 7— W.-llman & Dwin- Toh. Co. v. Ware Tob. Works. 4(> Fed. Rep. 289. 8 — Ei parte Thompson. I)erl)y & Co., 10 OfT. Caz. VM. — Seeder Refri^'erator Co. v. Wliit<' Knamel Hefri;.'triitor Co.. 17H Fed. Rep. f)!;?. 10 — New Ii»eria Extract of Ta- liasro I'epper Co. v. K. Mellhenny'H Son. r,l So. Rep. KU; 1 :»2 I.a. 14!); following' tlie dec-iHion of the Court of AppialH, I). ('.. in Melllienny v. New Ilteria Kxtract of Tahafk-o Pepper Co., .14 App. I). C. 430. 11 — Colj;aii V. Danheiwr. ;{."> Frd. Rep. l.-iO. 12— /n re Dick A Co.. !l ( HT. Cii/. 5.38. Class of (toods buttons.'' meaning; Swedish snuff store." tobaeeo.' scythe-.sockcts.* refrigerators.® pepjier sauee.'** chewin{;-t;um.*^ dnips.'- eotton waddinf^.*^ medieines.'^ watches,'^ wine.'" remedy for tootiuichc.'^ insurance compan}'."* coffee. '** tea.2" bed.=' 13— ThermopMie Co. v. Thermo- zine Co., 22r) Fed. Rep. 44(). 14 — Thompson v. Winchester, 36 Mass. 214. 1.') — Kx parte Strasltur^^er &. Co., 20 OfT. Gaz. 1 .').'>. 16 — Italian Swiss Colony Co. v. Italian Vineyard Co., laS Cal. 252; 110 Pac. Rep. 1)13. 17_I)i.vlin V. MeI.eod. 13.') Fed. Hep. 164; Devlin v. I'.ck, 13.'> Fed. Kep. 167. 18 — Traveler's Insurance Machine Co. V. Traveler's Insurance Co., 134 S. \V. i:.|). 877; 142 Ky. 523; judg- ment mollified in 136 S. W. Rep. l.-)4; 143 Ky. 21(1. ID — In rr Meyer Hros. CotTee &, Spice Co., 38 App. 1). C. 520. 2o_C„rl.in v. (Jonld. 133 V. S. 308; 33 L. Kd. 611. 21 — Tucker ^Ifp. Co. v. Royin;;ton. !) OfT. Caz. 45.-., Fed. Cn^>' No, I 1.22!). 113 WHAT CONSTITUTES A V\MI) Tit \I)I;M AICK. [§47 Claimed as Trademark "Union," "United States," "Vacuum Cup," "Vacuum Tread," "Valvolene," "Vertical Top," "Victoria," "Vitae-Ore," "V-0," "Water of Ayr," "Webster's Dictionary," "Wliirlinjr Spray," "White Swan," "Wire," "Wister's Balsam of White Cherry, ' ' ' ' Worcestershire, ' ' "Yale," 22 — Aiiu-ricaii Tobacco Co. v. Glo1)o Tol)acco Co., 103 Fed. Rep. 101 f). 23— Cady v. Schultz, 19 R. I. 193; 61 Am. St. Rep. 763. 24 — Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Dreadnau'rht Tire & Rubber Co., 22."> Fed. Rep. 138. 2') — Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Dreadnaufibt Tire & Rubber Co., 225 Fed. Rep. 138. 26— /w re Horsburgli, 53 L. J. Ch. 237. 27— F^ternberfT Mfp. Co. v. Miller, Du Brul & Peters Mffj. Co., 88 C. C. A. 398; Kil Fed. Rep. 318 (C. C. A. 8). 28— Wotherspoon v. Gray, Ct. Seas. Cas. (3rd ser.) 2, 38. 29— Noel V. Ellis, 89 Fed. Rep. 978-981. Class of floods. tobacco package8.22 dental rooms.^-** tires.- ' tires.^'^ cij^ar molds.2^ lozenges.2« medicine.2» medicine.'"' stone.''* a})plied to the standard lexi- con of that name.^^ syringes.^^ flour.^-* glass."'^ medicine.^* saiice,^^ locks.''^ 30— Noel v. Ellis, 89 Fed. R.-p. 978-981. 31 — Mont^fomerie v. Donald, Ct. Sess. Cas. (4tli ser.) 11,506. 32 — Mcrriam v. Texas Siftinj^s Rul). Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 944-947. 33— Marvel Co. v. Pearl, 133 Fed. Rep. 160, 162; 66 C. C. A. 226. 34— Bulte V. Tglehart Bros., 137 Fed. Rep. 492; 70 C. C. A. 76. 3.") — Mississippi Wire Glass Co. v. Continuous Glass Press Co., 81 Atl. Rep. 374; 79 N. J. Eq. 277. 36— Towle V. Spear, 7 Penn. L. J. 176; Co.x, Am. Tr. Cas. 67; Seb. 90. 37— Lea v. Deakin, 11 Biss. 23, Fed. Cas. No. 8,154; Lea v. WolfT, 15 Abb. Pr. N. vS. 1; 46 How. Pr. 157; Seb. 407; Lea v. Millar, Seton (4th Ed.), 242; Seb. 513. 38— Pj par^c Yale & TovTie Mfp. Co., 81 Off. Gaz. 801. §48] IIOI'KINS ON THVDK.M VUKS. 114 V} 48. Examples of valid trademarks, fancy, arbitrary or dis- tinctive words. -Tlie followiiifj iiistaiu'cs arc ilhistrutive of famy. arbitrary or distinctive words, whicli have been either held jtropcrly prote<*tcd ji^'ainst unfair competition, or their use uplieUl as trademarks in application to the classes of merchan- dise in connection with which the words have respectively been used, in some cases the (pu'sfion of validity was not raised, nor are nil of thcni to be upheld as technical t radcnnirks. These illusti-ations are ^riven in their alphabetical order to facilitate reference. ('l(iim(\H. 44— Laufcrty v. WIumIct. 11 Alil). N. C. 220; 11 Daly. l!»4; rt.'l How. Pr. 488. 4.'i— Dr. P(t«T IT. Fuhrn. y A SonH Co. V. RtimiinT. l.'i.T F<'d. R«'p. I'irt; 82 c. c. A. «;2i re. C. A. 7). Class of (laods. leather and leather poods. •''" telephone n umber for trouble department.""' licpHMir." thread.-'-'' oleomarprerine.'*'' blood remedy. ^'^ I)aint.^" sealintr wax,'*^ shoes. '"" shoes.-**' licorice.'^" 40- R.'cdcr v. Brodt, fi Oh in Doc. 248; 4 Ohio N. P. 205. 47 — Dcnnisoii Mf^'. Co. v. Tliomas 'Sli^^. Co.. !)4 Fed. Rep. Ofil-OS.S. 48 — Hamilton Brown Shoo Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 V. S. 2.')1 ; 00 L. Kd. — . 4!t^.I(isc|)li Bani;;aii Riililxr Co. V. Blooniin^rdal.'. S!) OlT. Oaz. 1070. .'■.0— McAndr.'W v. Bansott, 4 DoD. .1. & S. .380; .3.3 L. .1. Ch. .'iOO; 10 .Tur. X. S. r,r>0; 10 L. T. N. S. 442; 12 \V. R. 777; 4 N. R. 123; Cox, 000. .\natolia ih a jroo),'raphioal jiamo. Iiiit itw line luTo wan pri>tr<'tt'd on the tiioory of unfair compctitiou. 115 WHAT CONSTITUTES A VM.ID 'lltADIO.M AltK. [§48 Claimed as Trademark. "Anchor Brand," " Anfjostura," "A. N. Iloxie's Mineral," " Anniliilator, " "Anti- Wash-board," *' Apollinaris," "Argyrol," "Atlas," * * Auburn Lynn, ' * "Auto," "A. V. H.," "Baco-Curo," "B. B. B.," "B. B. II.," (with a crown), "Baffle," "Balm of Thousand F'lowers, ' ' "Bates," r,l— Ed.'lstcn V. Edclston, 1 DoO. J. & S. ISf); Cox, 607. 52— Siegort V. Gondolfi, 140 Fed. Rep. 100; 79 C. C. A. 142 (C. C. A. 2), reversing Siegert v. Gandolfi, 139 Fed. Rep. 917. 53 — Hoxie v. Chancy, 143 Mass. 592. 54 — Fulton V. Sellers, 4 Brewst. 42. 55 — O'Rourke v. Central City Soap Co., 26 Fed, Rep. 567. 56 — ApoUinaris Co. v. Xorrisli, 33 L. T. X. S. 242; Same v. Moore, Cox, Manual, Case No. 675; Same V. Herrfeldt, 4 P. R. 478; Same v. Scherer, 27 Fed. Rep. 18. 57 — Barnes v. Pierce, 164 Fed. Rep. 213. 58 — Atlas Assurance Co. v. Atlas Insurance Co., 112 N. W. Rep. 232; 138 Iowa 228. Class of Goods. wire.'"' bitters.'"'^ soap.''-' medicine.''''' soap.'"'' mineral water. '^''* antiseptic.''^ corporate name of insurance company."'** shoes.-'''* chocolate.'"* gin.«i remedy for tobacco habit."' medicine."-' iron."^ safes."-"' coismetic."" juimbering machines."'^ 59— W. R. Lynn Slioe Co. v. ATiliurn-Lynn Shoe Co., 62 Atl. Hep. 499; 100 Me. 461. 60— Walter Baker & Co. v. Dela- penha, 160 Fed. Rep. 746. 61 — Van Hohoken v. Mrdnis & Kaltenhach, 112 Fed. Rep. 52S. 6'2 — Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eu- reka Chemical and Mfg. Co., 80 Fed. Rep. lO."); 49 U. S. App. 709; 25 C. C. A. 314. 63— Foster v. Blood Balm Co., 77 Ga. 216, 3 S. E. Rep. 284. 64— Hall V. Barrows, 4 DeG. J. & S. l.-)0; Cox, 668. 6.5— Talhot V. Wel>hy, 3 R. P. C. 276; Cartmell, 324. 66 — Fetridge v. Merchant. 4 Ahh. Pr. 156. (i7— Bates Mfg. Co. v. Bates Xum- hering Machine Co., 172 Fed. Rep. 892, 178 Fed. Rep. 681; 102 C. 0. A. 181. §48] IIOIKINS ON TU.\1>K.M AKKS. 116 Claimed as Trad-cmark. "Beailcd," "Bcatty's Ilondliiip." "Bell of Mosi'ow. " **Bcnciliftiiu\" "Best & Vo.. Lilliputian Bazaar." "Bcstyette," "Bothosda," ••Billikcn." "Bismark," "Blac'kstonc," "Blairstowii," "Blood Searcher," "Blue Lick." "Boker's Stomach Bitters,*' "Bonnie Rye," "Bovilene." 68 — Unit«'(l Lar«- & Braid Mfg. Co. V. Bartli.lH Mfg. Co., 221 Fed. Rop. 4. "SO. CO — C;ag«- V. (Himda I'lilil. CO., 11 Can. Sup. Ct. :m\; (> Ont. Rt'p. 68; 11 Ont. App. 402. 70 — In rr CharU's Narcissc Ferro, Cert. No. 89.39. 71 — iSocic't*? Anonymi- v. Wcfitorn DiHtilling Co.. 43 Ft-d. R.j). 410; S<>oic't4- Anonymi* dc la DiHtilh-rit' dc la Benedictine v. Miciilovitch, Fl.-tohcT A Co.. M All.. Law .T. .Sfi4 ; A. Bauer & Co. v. DiBtillorie do la Liqueur Benedictine, .Ifi C. C. A. 480; 120 Fed. Rep. 71. 72 — Ball V. Urondwiiy Baziinr. 87 N. E. Rep. fi74; 104 N. Y. 429, reverHing lon N. Y S. 249. 121 App. Div. .''.4fl 73 — \ew York Mackintosh Co. v. Flam. 108 Fed Rep .n?! 74_T>„n».Rr v. Gknn. 42 WIb. 118; S4».. r,20. (lass of Goods. lace tips."" copy book."® wine.""' liipuMir.' ' t-hildrcn's clotiiinp store."* waterproof capes and clokcs.''' mineral water.'* dolls.'f I)aper collars.'" cigars."' garage,"*' medicine.^® water.***' medicine.^' whiskey.**^ pomade.*'^ 7r> — Billiken Co. v. Baker & Ben- not Co., 174 Fed. Rop. 829. 76 — Messorolo v. Tynborg, 4 Abb. I'r. X. S. ^10; 30 How. Pr. 14; Cox, 479 ; S.o. 300. 77— Lo\->' V. Waitt, r>C> Fed. Rop. 1010. 78— Iluir V. Wulhu'c (N. J. Ch.), 93 Atl. Rop. 702. 79 — Fulton V. Sollors, 4 Browst. 42; Cox, Manual. Case No. 279. SO— Nortlicutt V. Turnoy. 101 Ky. .114: 41 S. W. Rep. 21; Parkland Hill Blue Lick \Vator Co. v. ITaw- kins. 20 S. W. Rep. 389; 9.'. Ky. .^02: If. Ky. Law Rep. 210; 44 Am. St. Rep. 2:)4. fll_Funko V. DreyfiiH. 31 La. Ann. 80; 44 Am. Rep. 413. 82— Bonnie & Co. v. Bonnie Bros. (Ky.K 100 R. \V. Rep. 871. 8.3 — Loclrwood v. Bowtwlck, 2 Daly, ri21. n \V1I\I' ((INSTITI'TKS \ V\MI) I K \l )i;.\I \I(K. §48 Claimed as Tradt iniirl;. "Bovril," "Bromidia," * 'Bromo-CafTiMiie, " ' "Buster Brown," "CarboliiKMim," "Carmel." "Carrom," "Cashniore Bouquet," •'Celluloid,' "Celery Compound," "CenteTinial," "Centeiuiial," "Ceresota," "Champion," "Chantecler," "Charley's Aunt," 84— /n rr Bovril. L. R. (1896) 2 Ch. D. 600. 85— Battle v. Finlay (2), r)0 Fed. Rpp. 106; Battle v. Finlay (1), 4;") Fed. Rep. 796. 86 — Keasbey v. Brooklyn Chem- ical Works, 37 N. E. Rep. 476; 142 N. Y. 467; reversing s. c, 21 N. Y. Supp. 696. 87— New York Herald Co. v. Star Co., 146 Fed. Rep. 1023, 76 C. C. A. 678 (C. C. A. 2). 88 — Avenarins v. Kornely, 121 X. W. Rep. 336; 130 Wis. 247. 89 — Jewish Colonization Ass'n v. Solomon & Germansky, 154 Fed. Rep. 157. 90 — Liiddinpton Novelty Co. v. Leonard. 119 Fed. Rep. 937; Wil- liams V. Mitehell. 45 C. C. A. 265, 106 Fed. Rep. 168. 91— Colpate & Co. Cert. No. 914: Colgate V. Adams, 88 Fed. Rep. 899. Clnss of (loods. meat extract."* medicine,'*'' medicine.^' comic section (jf news- paper.'*" paint.'*'* wine.'*" pame-board."" toilet soap.'" compound of j)yroxyline.^^ medicine."' clothin^."^ alcoholic spirits."^ flour.9« flour."" name of play."" name of farce."" 92— (•(■lluloid Mfg. Co. v. Read, 47 Fed. Rep. 712; Celluloid Mfg. Co. V. Cellonite Mfg. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 94. 93— Wells & Richardson Co. v. Siegel. Cooper & Co., 106 Fed. Rep. 77. 94 — Sternberger v. Thalheimer, 3 OfT. Gaz. 120. 95— /n re Bush & Co., 10 OfT. Gaz. 164. 96 — Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. V. ^fatiser & Cressman, 162 Fed. ivep. 1004; Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. v. Wm. Callam & Son, 177 Fed. Rep. 786. 97 — Atlantic Milling Co. v. Robin- son. 20 F.d. Rep. 217: 27 Off. Gaz. 1.322. 98— Froliman v. ^forris. 123 N. Y. St. 1090; 6S Misc. Rep. 461. 99— Frohman v. Miller. 29 N. Y. S. 1109; 8 Misc. Rep. 379. §48] IltH-KlNS ON IRADK.M AUK^ 118 I'laimid as Tnidi mark. "Charter Oak." " Chart reuse' "Chatterbox. " "Chieano Waists/' "Chicken Cock."' ■■Chiiu'se Liniinciit." "Climax." "Chib." 'Chil) Coektails," "Club Soda." "Coal Oil J(.1iiiii\-s Petro- leum." "Cocoaine.* "Coe's Superidiosphate of Lime, " "Cohesive."' "Comfort." "Compactuiii." l_Fillry V. Fassrtt. 44 Mo. ITS; 100 Am. Di'c. 27r>: Cox, Am. Tr. Tan. Mi); Am. L. R«r- N. S. 402: SU'h. 31:}; FilU-r v. Child, Hi Batilif. :J76. 2 — Ba}.'lin v. Ciisiiiicr Co.. 221 U. S. .'iKO; .'>.') L. ¥a\. 8«i:i; Kt-V v. L«'C- •luturior. L. K. (1908| 2 Cli. 72(1. :i— KHt<-H V. LchUo, 20 F<(1. Uep. 01; E«t<» V. Worthin^'ton, 31 Fed. Rpp. I'tA; KhU'H v. Lfwlif, 27 Fid. Ili-p. 22; F-an 2r.fi. 7 — Killcy V. FaHwtt. 44 Mo. 173. H — Houbloin V. AdamH, 12r) Fed. K«i.. 782. Clans of (loods. stoves.' liijueur.- juvenile b()oks, published periodically. •' corset waists.* whiskey.'' liniment." stoves.^ cocktails.'* cocktails." carbonated water.** soap." hair oil.'- fertilizer.'^ tile.'* periodical publication.*^ umbrellas."' 9 — /„ re S. C. Ilorbat Importing Co., 30 App. D. C. 297. 10 — Coclirarn' v. Macniah (P. C.) !.. R. (18n Al.l>. Pr. N. S. 212; 9 Bos. 193. i:j_Hra(ll.v V. Norti>n. 33 Conn. l.">7; Cox'h American Trademark ("aws 331; 87 Am. Dee. 200. 14 — u. Cuastavino Co. v. Com- • rma. 1S4 F.«l. K»'p. r.49. l.->— Canm-rt v. Ruj.ert. 127 Fed. Rep. 902, 02 C. C. A. '>94, revers- ing' ». e. 119 Fed. Rep. 221. 1H_/m rr Davit* TrademarkB, 22 Trademark Itecord, 50. Jl!) WHAT CONSTITUTES V VAI-ID IHADK.M AKK. l§48 Clainu d as Tnuh mark. "Computing Cheese Cut- ter," "Congress Water," "Coon," "Cottolene," "Cough Cherries," "Cream," "Creamalt," "Crow," "Crown," "Cuticura," "Delsarte," "Derringer," "Dominion," "Don Carlos," 17 — (Strictly an unfair competi- tion case). Computinj,' C'liccsi- Cut- ter Co. V. Dunn, 4r> Ind. App. 20, 88 N. E. Rep. 93. 18 — Conpress, etc. Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co., 57 Barb. 526; Cox, 599; 45 N. Y. 291; 10 Abb. P. R. X. S. 348; 6 Am. Rep. 82 ;. 4 Am. L. T. 168 ; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 624; Sob. 354. 19 — ^^'e.stern Grocer Co. v. Caf- farelli Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.) 108 S. W. Rep. 413 (not ofiicially re- ported) ; reversed on other grounds in Caffarelli Bros. v. Western Gro- cer Co., 127 S. W. Rep. 1018; 102 Tex. 104. 20— X. K. Kalrl.ank Co. v. Central Lard Co., 04 Fed. Rep. 133; X. K. rairl)ank Co. v. Ogden Packing & Provision Co., 220 Fed. Rep. 1002. 21 — Rtoughton v. Woodard, 39 Fed. Rep. 002. 22— Price Baking Powder Co. v. Fyfe, 45 Fed. Rep. 799; Interna- tional Food Co. v. Price Baking Powder Co., 33 App. D. C. 137. 23— Geo. G. Fox Co. v. Glynn, 78 N. E. Rep. 89; 191 Mass. 344. ( 7a.s.v u( (luudK. machine.'" mineral water.'" mohisses.'" lard substitute.^" confectionery. -' baking powder. '-^^ bread.*-"' whiskey. 2^ baking products.^'^ toilet soap.2« shoes.-" fire arms,28 hotel.29 olives.^" 24— W. A. Gaines & Co. v. Rock Spring Dis. Co., 141 C. C. A. 287, 226 Fed. Rep. 531. 25 — ^'irginia Baking Co. v. South- ern Biscuit Works, 68 S. E. Rep. 261, 111 Va. 227. 26— Potter Drug & Chem. Co. v. Miller, 75 Fed. Rep. 656. Held infringed by the word "curative" and imitative devices. The mark assumed to be valid in Potter Drug & Chem. Corp. v. Pasfield Soap Co., 102 Fed. Rep. 490; Same v. Same. 106 Fed. Rep. 914, 46 C. C. A. 40. 27— M<-dlar & Holmes Shoe Co. V. Delsarte :\rfg. Co., N. J. Eq., 46 Atl. Rep. 1089. affirmed, X. .1. Eq., 61 Atl. Rep. 410. 28- Derringer v. Plate, 29 Cal. 292; Cox. Am. Tr. Cas. 324. 29— O'Grady v. :McDonald. 66 Atl. Rep. 175. 72 X. .T. Eq. 805. 30 — (But held not infringed l)y "Don Caesar"). Chance v. Gulden, 165 Fed. Rep. 624; 92 C. C. A. 58 (C. C. A. 3). reversing Gulden v. Chance, 163 Fed. Rep. 447. §48] nOl'KINS ON Claimid as Tnuh marh. ' ' Hr. Drake's (icnnaii < r(iiii» HcmtMly."" "Dr. Ldbcntliars E.ssonlia Antiphthisica," "Dublin.' "Durham." "Dyspepticure," " Edohvci.ss, " "Elastic." "Electro-Silicon," "Elk," "Emollia." "Enii)ire," "Epicure," "Ethiopian," "Eureka. " "Eureka," "Eureka." "Eureka." .31 — Driikr Mfdicinc Co. v. Gless- ncr, r.K oliio St. XM , f.7 N. E. Uf-p. ;22. 32— /n rr Rdlilimd. Id ( )fT. Oaz. {•SO. 33— /n re Cornwall i Co.. 12 OIT. Ca/.. 312. 34 — Hlackwtll v. Armistfad. Fi'd. Caw No. 1474, .'i Am. L. T. 8.-); 3 Huj:lii-H, 103; Armistcad v. lUack- w.Il, 1 Off. Oaz. 003; Rlackw.-ll v. Dil.nll. 14 Off. ('.&/.. 033. F— Ex pnrtr F.d. V & Co.. 87 Off. Ga/. 10.'i7. 30 — UoHiii^' V. AtkiiiHon. 27 S(d. .r. .'•>34. 37 — Glol>c\Vfrni<'kr ('<>. v. Hmwii, 121 F«-d. H.'p. IH.'. 38 — Kl<-<'tro-Siliron ( n. v. Hazard, 2« Hun. 309; 30 N. V. Sup. Ct. 309. TKAHI.M AUKS. CJilSS of (loods. JL>0 IIKMllCIIie." iiHMliciiie.'^^ .soaj ).•'•' smoking: tobacco.^* medicine. •""* jierfunie.'"' bookcases. •'' j)olishiM;; l)repa ration.^" cigars.-'" toilet cream.'*" stoves." canned salmon. ""^ stockiuf^js.^^ fertilizer.^* shirts.^'' fire ho.se. ^''' pressing: boards.*" .30— Liditonstcin v. C.oldsmith, 37 Fi'd. Rt'i). 3.-.n. 40— /« re Grosamitli, 00 L. T. X. S. 012. 41— Fill.-y V. FaHwtt, 44 Mo. 173; Sob. 313. 42— Georjjc v. Smitli. .')2 Fed. Rep. 830. 43— Hiiii' V. Lart. 10 .lur. 100; 7 I.. T. O. S. 41; Sol). 80. 44 — .\llo;:liaiiy Fortilizor Co. v. Woodsidc. 1 llu^'lios 11;-.; Sob. .304. 4.'.— Ford V. Fostor, L. R. 7 Ch. I). Oil; 41 L. J. Ch. 082; 27 L. T. X. S. 219; 20 W. R. 818; Sob. 384. 40 — Fun-ka Firo How Co. v. Kunka Hublior Mf^'. Co.. 09 X. J. K.|. 1.-.9; 00 Atl. Rop. r.Ol; 72 X. .1. i;i|. .^..-1.-.. 0.-. Atl. Hop. 870; aflirmod ill 71 Atl. U.|.. Ii:i4. 71 X .1. Kq. 47 — Caw V. Murjihoy, 31 .\\ip. D. C. 24.'). 121 WllVr CONSTITI'TES A VAMI> Tit \I»I..M AICK. §48 Clainud as Tradf )nark. "Eureka," "Excelsior," "Excelsior," "Excelsior," "Faber," "Family," "Favorita," "P'ibre riiamois," "Filofloss," "Filtre Rapide," "Finney's Famous," "Foutz." "Freemont Undertaking Co.," "G. J. G.," "Glenfield," "Glenfield," "Golden Crown," "Golden Wedding," 48 — Symonds v. Greene, 28 Fed. Rep. 834. 49— Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 173; Seb. 313; Sheppard v. Stuart, 13 Phila. 117. 50 — Braham v. Bustard, 1 11. & M. 447. L. T. N. S. 190. 51— Udell-Predock Mfl'KlN> ON ■! Claimfd rt- tu}», 87 Off. f!a/.. 2117. 74 — Collier V. .?<>neH. 120 N. Y. St. »ni ; 00 Miw. Rep. »7. TTj — ()Hii(Hx\ V. Rorkwood, 11 Hlatilif. :no. Kid. CuKi- No. lOOOf). KA1>KMAKK.S. 122 CliLts of (ioods. eosmetie."" cigars.'"' scythe-stones."* whiskey."" syrui).'" arches."* Avliiskey.'- lard, sausages and bacon.''' set of selected books.'* prints.''' jars."" paints and varnishes.''^ plumbers' suj)plies."* hosiery.'-' se^vin^l: machines.*" drills.«i tea.*2 whiskey.'*' 70 — Udwlev V. Ilouphton, 2 Brewst. 303. 77 — Lowe Bros. Co. v. Toledo Varnish Co., lOS Fed. Rep. 027; 04 C. C. A. 83. 78_H. Mucll.T MlV. Co. V. A. Y. McDonaly & Morrison Mfjr. Co., 164 Fed. Rep. 1001. 79 — Hol<'i)roof Hosiery Co. v. Wallaeh Bros.. 100 Fed. Rep. 606; decree modified, 102 Fed. Rep. .')34 (C. C. A. 2). 80 — New lIoHK- Sf\vin<: Machine Co. V. Blooniiii^.'ii«le. TiO Fed. Rep. 284. 81 — Tulian v. Hoosier Drill Co., 78 Ind. 408. 82— Pid.liiiK V, How, 8 Sim. 477. 83 — Lanahan v. Kissel & Son, 135 Frd. Rrp. 899. 123 WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TKADK.M AlCK. §48 Claimed as Trademark. "Iluiiyadi Janos," ~~" "IIygieni(iues," "Ideal," "Imj)erial," "Indian Pond," "Indian Root," "In-er-seal," "Insectine," "Insurance," "Invip:orator, " "Iron Clad," "Java," "Jewel," "Junket," 84 — Saxleliner v. Eisner & Men- delson Co. (3). 170 U. S. 10; 4;") L. Ed. (iO. 85 — Waukeslia Hygeia Mineral Springs Co. v. Hygeia Sparkling Distilled Water Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 438; II C. C. A. 277; Hygeia Dis- tilled Water Co. v. Hygeia Ice Co. (2), 72 Conn. G4G; 45 Atl. Rep. 957; 49 L. R. A. 147; Same v. Same (1), 70 Conn. 516, 40 Atl. Rep. 534; Consolidated Ice Co. v. Hygeia Distilled Water Co., 80 C. C. A. 506; 151 Fed. Rep. 10; affirm- ing Hygeia Distilled Water Co. v. Consolidated Ice Co., 144 Fed. Rep. 139; Waukesha Hygeia Min. Springs Co. V. Hygeia Sparkling Distilled Water Co., II C. C. A. 282, 63 Fed. Rep. 443. 86 — Bailly v. Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 51 Off. Gaz. !)7n: 10 X. Y. Supp. 224. 87 — Waterman v. Shipman, 130 N. Y. 301. 88— McGraw Tire & Rubber Co. V. Griffith, 198 Fed. R^-p. 566. Class of (ioods. medicinal water.^"* water.*^'' su.spondors.**" fountain jjons.'^^ autonu)l)il(' tires."** scythe-stones."'^ pills."" bakery products.'*^ insect ])owder."- oil.='" spring bed bottoms.^^ boots."''' face powder."''' stoves."^ rennet preparation. "^ 89— Pike Mfg. Co. V. Cleveland Stone Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 896. 90 — Comstock v. Wliite, 18 How. Pr. 421. 91 — Ohio Baking Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 62 C. C. A. 116: 127 Fed. Rep. 116; affirming National Biscuit Co. V. Ohio Baking Co., 127 Fed. Rep. 160. 92 — Arthur v. Howard, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 81. 93— Insurance Oil Tank Co. v. Scott, 33 La. Ann. 946. 94 — Ex parte Heyman, IS off. Gaz. 922. 9.") — Hecht V. Porter, 9 Pac. Coast L. J. .369. 96 — Wertheim»'r v. Bacheller Im- porting Co., 185 Fed. Rep. 850. 97 — American Stove Co. v. Detroit Stove Works. 31 App. D. C. 304; Barstow Stove Co. v. Detroit Stove \\'orks, 31 App. D. C. 304. 98 — Hansen v. Siegel-Cooper Co. (2), 106 Fed. Rep. 691. §48] IIOIKINS ON TK \I>^;MAHK^ rj4 Claimtil «'.< Tro(h mark. "Kaiser." •'Kntluiiroii." "Keystone," " Keystone," " Kinj; Hee." '"Kitehen Crystal," " Knickerboeker, " "Koflio. " "La Carolina," "La C'roniea." "Lacto-Pi'ittine," "La Favorita," " Lamoille," "La Norma." "La Normandi,"' " Leojjold. " "LePage," "Le Bon Ton."" * ' Lieensed \' ict nailers, 90 — KaiHcrUrautTfi v. Hlat/. Brew- ing Co., 71 Ffd. Rep. 6!)."); s. c. affirmed, 74 Fi-d. Rep. 222. 1— H<-atli V. Wri<;ht, ("•>x. .\ni. Ir. Cas. l')4, .3 Wall. Jr. 1. 2_ColH'n V. Naglf, 73 N. E. Rt'P- 270; mo MasH. 4. 3— Buzliy V. Daviri, l.'tO l"i»l. Itip. 27r>, 80 C. C. A. 1(53. 4 — Sarrazin v. W. R. Jrl.y ri;;«r Co., 93 Fed. R.p. <;24, 3."> ('. C". A. 406. ry—In rv KaHtmaii. W. N. IHSO, p. 128. «V— Burt V. Tuc-k.-r. 17H Muhrt. 4!»:{, .','» N. !■:. H.-p. nil. -Vi L. 15. A. 112. 7 — Sleepy Ey«- Milling Co. v. ( . F. Blanke Tea A ('off.'.' Co., S.') OtT. r.az. I!»0.'.. 8 — Havana ('cimmereial Co. v. NichoU, 155 Fed. Rep. 302. Class of (lood^. beer."' remedy.' cijrars.'- oil.-' snH)kint; tobaeeo.* soaj).-' shoes." cereal I'oflfee." cigars.'' ne\vsi)ai)er." medieine.'" flonr." scythe-stones.'^ cigar-boxes.'^ cigars.'^ woolen-cloth.'^ glue.'" jiublication.'" relish.'*^ «l — Strpliciis V. DcConto, 4 Abb. I'r. N. S. 47. 10 — Carnriek v. Morsoii, Sel). .')43; (ox, Manual, .")43. 11— Menendez v. Holt. 128 I'. S. .-.14: .32 L. Kd. ".2(1. 12— Pike Mf<:. Co. v. Cleveland Stone Co., 3.". Fed. Rep. 89(5. 13 — Kx parte K;.'yptiHii (,'i;,'arftti' (•<.., S.-> Oir. C.az. liMI.-). 14— Staclielber;; v. Tono-. 23 Fed. R.'p. 430. 1.-, — Hirst V. D.iiliam. I- K 14 Kq. .->42'. 27 K. T. N. S. .-.C; 41 I.. • J. Cb. 7:.2. lt» — RuKsia Cement Co. v. Katz- .nHt.in, ion Fed. R.-p. 314. 17_S. T. Taylor .^ Co. v. Nant. 1.-.4 N. Y. S. !»H2. lfi_Cotton v. (;illar Ohio X. P. 275. 2.5— Carroll v. Ertheiler, 1 Fed. Rep. 688. 26 — Pike Mfg. Co. v. Cleveland Stone Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 806. 27 — Smith v. Sixbury, 25 Hun. 232; 32 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 232. ( 'lass of (loods. hay knives.''' merchandi.se.-" anti.septic solntion,^' woolen cloth. -- corporate name.'-' cigars.-' smoking tobacco. ^•'' scythe-stones.-" ointment.^" liquor.-*^ corn flour.2** toilet soap.^" mill products,^* medicine.'*''^ whiskey.-'^ watches,"*^ hotel. 35 confectionery,-'*" 28— Kidd & Co. v. Mills, .Johnson, & Co., 5 Off. Gaz. 337; Kidd v. .Fohnson, 100 U. S. 617; 25 L. Ed. 760. 20— Glen Cove Mfg. Co. v. T.ude- liiig, 22 Fed. Rep. 823. 30 — Summit City Soap Works v. Standard Soap Co., 37 App. I). C. (;(14. 31 — Listman Mill Co. v. William Listman Milling Co., 60 N. W. Rep. 261; 88 Wis. 334. 32— Perry v. Truefit, tJ Beav. 56; 1 L. T. 384; Seb. 73. 33 — Mellwood Dist. Co. v. Harper, 1C.7 Fed. Rep. 380. 34 — Ex parte Hamjjdeii Watch Co., 81 Off. Gaz. 1282. 3.5— Bush V. Gross, (N. .1. Ch.) 64 Atl. Rep. 754. 36 — Reymer & Bros. v. Huyler's, 100 Fed. Rep. 83. §48] HOPKINS t).N TKADKMAKKS. 126 (laimtd (IS 1 ra.-)3. 137 Fed. Rfp. r)»2, .'iO.'-). 41— OoldBfccin v. Win Ian, (\1 F.<1. R«-p. 124. 42— Hill V. Lock.-. K I'aip-, 7.'.; Cox, Am. Tr. Can. 11. 43— A'x parte IJutl.'r, 87 < MF. Caz. 1781. 44 — Schondfl v. .Silver, IH .\. V. Supp. 1; (33 Hun. 330. 4.'i — St^Tlinn Rcnu'dy Co. v. Eunka, t-U-. Mf^r. C«)., 70 Fed. R. |>. 704; 80 F.d. R.p. 10.-). 40 — In rr National Candy Co., 3.') Ai-p I), C. 3.-.I. ('hiss tif Ciovils. injectors and feeders for steam boilers.-'' blendeil coflfee.-'^ transfer business.^* neek-scarfs.^" eigars.^' newspaper. ^2 8oap.*3 cigars.^^ medieine.^'^ candy.'"' confectionery.*^ laundry aid.''** cigarettes,*'* whiskey. •'^'* whiskey.-'''' tobacco.''" beer, with picture."^' liniment.-''^ 47 — New Knj,'laiid (.'onfectioniTy Co. V. National Wafer Co., 224 Fed. Rep. 344. 48— Van Zilc v. Nonih Mfj.-. Co.. 228 Fed. Rep. 8-2fi. 40— IVrkina v. Apollo Hroa., I'.t7 Fed. Rep. 47(5. .")(»- t;eo. T. Stajrp Co. v. Taylor, !!.-> Ky. O.-.l ; 27 S. W. Rep. 247. ")! — W. A. Caines & Co. v. Los- lie, 'A N. Y. Supp. 421; W. A. CaineH & Co. v. K. Whyte Grocery, Fruit & Wine Co., 107 Mo. Ajiji. .^)07: 81 S. W. Rep. 048. .'i2 — laeoway v. YoiuiK, 228 Fed. Ri'I). (').■!(». C\'.\ — (;. Heilenian Hrew. Co. \. independent Rrew. Co., 101 P'ed. R.-p. 480 (C. C. A. 0). r,4 — Dme^a Oil Co. v. W'esehler, 71 N. V. Su|.p. 083. 127 WHAT CONSTITUTES A VAMD ri<\l>l.M\KK. L§48 Clai)ii((l (IS Trar). 56— A'j- parte Lorcnz, 89 0(T. Gaz. 2067. 57 — Chancollor of Oxford Univer- sity V. Wilmore- Andrews Pub. Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 443. 58— Davis v. Kendall, 2 R. I. 566; Davis V. Kennedy, 13 Grant Up. Can. Ch. 523. 59 — Roberts v. Sheldon, Fed. Case No. 11,916; 18 OfT. Gaz. 1277; 8 Bias. 398. 60 — A. Stein & Co. v. Liberty Garter Co., 198 Fed. Rep. 959. 61— Smith V. Mason, W. R. (1875), p. 62. 62— :M. J. Breitenbacli Co. v. Spannrenberp, 131 Fed. Rep. 160. 63 — Kyle v. Perfection Mattress Co., 127 Ala. 39; 28 So. Rep. 545. 64— Taylor v. Carpenter (1), 3 Story, 458. ( 'lass of (loods. towels.'"' biscuits.'"' bibles." medicine.''** needles.''" garters,''" medicine.''' medicinal i)reparation.'* mattresses."-' thread.''^ puzzle.'''' whiskey."" stoves."' cigars."** cigars.''" I)udding i)reparation.'^'' shoes.'' shoes.'- ().') — Lyman v. Burns, 47 Off. Gaz. (160. 66 — Somers v. Newman, 31 App. D. C. 193. 67 — Van Horn v. Coogan, 52 N. .1. Eq. 380; 28 Atl. Rep. 788; aflirnu'd, Van Horn v. Coogan, 52 X. J. Eq. 588, 33 Atl. Rep. 50. 68 — Juan F. Portuondo Cigar Mfg. Co. V. \'incente Portuondo Cigar Mfg. Co.. 70 Atl. Rep. 9()8 ; 222 Pa. 116. 69— Hier v. Abrahams, 82 N. Y. 519; 37 Am. Rep. 589. 70 — Clotworthy v. Sehepp, 42 Fed. Rep. 62. 71— Thomas G. Plant Co. v. May Co., 44 C. C. A. 534, 105 Fed. Rep. 375; Thomas G. Plant Co. v. May Co., 100 Fed. Rep. 72. 72— Thomas G. Plant Co. v. May Mercantile Co.. 153 Fed. Rep. 229; Thos. G. Plant Co. v. Hamburger, 153 Fed. Rep. 232. §48] llOl'KlNs ON IK \I>I,M \UKS. 128 Clainud as T rail c mark. "Rndiuin." " Hanu'Sfs." "KanitT." "Roxall." "Kisclioii-lc Zioii." "Rising S\iii,'" "Roai-h Sault." "Robe & Taimiiip Co.," "Roper Williams,'' "Roof Leak." "Rosebud,'* "Rowley, " "Royal." "Royal Blue," "Sapolio," "Saj)()uifier, " ' ' Sarony, ' ' 7.1 — Kiwmnn v. SphifTcr, \7u Fod. Ut'p. 47:}. 74 — Stt'phnno v. SatmatopouloB, 109 Fi-d. R.'p. 4.'>1. 7.'! — Kostcrin;; v. Scattlr IJrt'wiii^' \ Maltinjr to., \A V. C. A. 7f., IKi F.'d. H«'p. 020. 7n — Ri'j,'iB V. Jaynea, 70 N. E. Rep. 480; 18.') Mass. 4.')8; airirnu'd in 77 N. K. R.p. 774. 191 Mass. 24.'); com- j)an- Tln'odorr Rretanus Co. v. UniU-d Dru;,' Co.. 22(5 Ft-d. Rep. .')4.'i (C. C. A. Oi, Hcc Hi'f. 47. 77 — .L'wish Colonization Aes'n v. Solomon A Cicrmansky. I'll r. SO — Kx pnrh- Crand Ra|)idrt School Furniture Co., 87 2 Fi-d. Rep. 090; 81 C. C. A. 010. 88— Pennsylvania Salt Mf^'. Co. V. Meyers. 79 Fed. Rep. 87. 89— Burrow v. Marceau. 109 N. Y. St. 10.-.; 124 App. Div. Oflr>. 12!) wiivr ((iNs'rriTTKS a valid ik \I)i;m \kk. f§48 ClaitiK ^. i:u) Claimtil lis Tnuh nunk. "St. James," "St. .Tames," "Suiili^'lit." "Sunshine," "Swan Down." "Sweet Caporal." "Sweet O p () i> <) n a X of Mexii'o," "Syrup of Red Spruce Gum."' "Taniar Indien," "Teller," "The Good Things of Life," '• Til e Nile," "Tidal Wave." "Tivoli." "Tobaseo," "Trilby," "Turpentine Shellae," 10_Gil.U-tt V. Rrad. Mod. 4.->0: Sob. 3, Kx parte Fobs, In re Bald- win, 30 L. T. 354; 2 DcG. & .1. 230; 27 L. J. Bkptcy. 17; 4 .Tur. X. S. 522; 21 L. T. 30; S.I.. 150. 11— Kinm-y v. Basch. S.I.. 542. 12— L«'V«T Bros. (Ltd.) v. Pas- field, S8 F.d. R.'p. 4S4. 1.3— K<'adinf,' Stov.- Works v. S. M. IIowi'B Co., 87 N. K. R.p. T^l; 201 Ma«8. 437. 14— Ti'tlow V. 'la|.i.aii, S.'. F.-d. H.p. 774. 1,') — Kinnry Toh. Co. v. Mailer, .'•.3 Hun, 340; « N. Y. Supp. 380; lIornl»oHt4'l V. Kiniu'V, 110 N. Y. 04, 17 N. K. H.-p. «««. Ifl — Smitli V. \\'dniir. JS Biirl>. 438. 17— Ki-rry v. Tmipin. t,n |', ,1 i:.|. Class of (loods. newspaj)er.'"' rijjarettes.' ' soap.'-' stoves.''' complexion powder.'* ei^'arettes. '•'■ pcrfiiiiie.""' medicine.'" lozenpes."* recordinjr safe.'" l)eriodieal.-" l)layin<2: cards registered as a i)rint.-' tobaceo.-- beer.--* sauce. -^ gloves.^'"^ wood filler.-" IS^drillon v. (luiniii. W. X. 1S77. p. 14. lit — Automatic Kccordiii;,' Safe Co. v. Bankers" Rej.;isterin;; Safe Co., 2'24 Fed. Rep. 50«i. 20- Stokes V. Allen. .\'. V. Supp. S4(>; 50 Hun. 52(). 21 — /v'j- parte United States Play- iiifT Card Co., 82 Off. V.nz. 1200. 22— Sor-,' V. Welsl). It; ()ir. Caz. 2.'i — Berliner Bruuerei (.Jeaell- sel.aft V. Knight, W . N. 1883, p. 70. 24 — E. Mcllhenny's Son v. New llteria Kxtract of Talmsco Pe|)per Co., 30 App. 1). c. .i:':. 2."> — /h rr Holt & Co's Trademark (C. A.), L. R. (IHOl I 1 Ch. 711. 2<'» — (,\h ajjainst unfair oompeti- tiimi. ^tandar11) 1 HADDM AKK. §48 t'ldimcd as TnuU mark. ''Twin Brothers,*' "Uneeda," "Vulvoline," "Velvet Grip," • "Victor," "Victoria," " \'irgiiiia Leaf," " Vitaseope," "Vulean," "Warner," "Waverly," " Wearever, " "White House," "White Rock Lithia," "Wilh)uj. Co. v. Spi-ar (1840). 2 Sand. S. C. 500; Cox, 87; Sol). 100. In a rrct-nt caso .Iiid^'i' Hradf»)rd has called attention to the use of the word "quality" in the casea, and distin^juished its two differ- ent meaninps, in tlie following lanjnuijre : "A tradiniark in (h-si^ined to en- able one h'jiitimately to huihl u|> or protect his ImsineH.s, hut not to deprive otinTH of the ri;;lit to use ni-cessary or proper mi ans for car- rying on an honoral)lc competi- tion in trade. No one lias a right to appropriate a sign or a Hyml)ol wliich, from tiie nature of the fact it is uwd to signify, otliers may emjiloy with e(|ual truth, and tiiere- fore have an i--2.")3, the court said : " 'Such a proprietor, if he owns or controls the goods which he ex- j.( ses to sale, is entitled to the ex- elusiv*' use of any trademark adopted and applied hy him to tin- goods to distinguish them as being of a particular mamifaitiire and i|iiality.' et<'. •In Medicine Co. v. Wood. 108 f. S. 21S. 222; 2 Sup. Ct. 430, the <-ourt said : " 'He may thus notify the public of the origin of the article and secure to himself the benefits of I'Mi ^VIIAT CONSTITUTES A VALID THAHK.M AUK. [§*19 ever, the jiul^e (I)iier) observes tliat the iiiaiuifacturer "has 110 ri^ht to approjjriate a si{,Mi or symbol wliieli, from the nature of the fact wliich it is used to signify, others may employ with (Mjual truth, aud therefore have au equal rif^ht to emjjloy for tlie sanu* purpose. Were such au a|)propriation to be saiH'l idiM'd hy au iujuuct i(ui, the action of a eourt of equity would be as injurious to the public as it is now benefieial ; it would have the elTect in many instaix-es of ereatiuf? a monopoly in the sale of j)ar1icular ^oods as exclusive as if secured by a patent, aiul freed from any limitation of time. '^ In aiu)ther early ease tlie chancellor observed: "In respect to Avords, marks or devices which dok not denote the goods or j)ro])erty or particular place of business of a person, but only the nature, kind or quality of the articles in which he deals, * * * no i)r()i)erty in such words, marks or devices can be acquired. There is obviously no good reason why one person should have any better right to use them than another. They may be used by many different persons at the same time, in their brands, marks or labels on their respective goods, ■with perfect truth and fairness. They signify nothing, when fairly interj)i'eted, by which any dealer in a similar article could be defrauded."^"' And in more recent cases the rule has been explained in somewhat similar terms: "It is true that no one can ajipropriate as a trademark the commercial any i)artic'iilar excellence it may Ity tium to possess a certain de- possess from tlie manner or mate- <;ree of excellence. ♦ • • And rials of its manufacture. His tlie fact that flour so marked ac- trademark is l)<)th a sijrn of tlie (juired an extensive sale, because quality of the article and an as- the public discovered that it mijjht surance to the pulilic tliat it is a be relied on as of a uniformly genuine ])r()(luct of his manufac- nn'ritorious quality, demonstrates ture.' that the brand deserves protec- "In Menondez v. Holt, 128 U. S. tion rather than it should be de- 514, 520; 9 Sup. Ct. 144, the court, barred therefrom, on the {rround, 8peakinMeric name, or a tiani(> merely descriptive of an article of trade, of its (lualitics. iii) : "(3) Any device, niai-k. bi-aiui. Iieadiiip. label, ticket, letter, word, fipuro. or combination of lctt(M's, words or tipures. which was. or wore, before the thirteenth day of Aupust. one tliousand oipht hundred and seventy-five. p\il)Iicly used by more than 47— DnydopiM-l v. Yoiinfr. U I. IM. '>;• 1 . "• .\m. L. T. 1H.'>; 1 PhilH. '22fi; Prici- A St.iiiirt, VIA. « »IT. Ca/.. 27!t; S.-U. ;»27. 424. .'>0 — I.ftwn'iipr Mfj;. Co. v. IN-nneB- 4g_To\vn V. Sti'tBon, f. .M.l.. Pr ««••. Mfjr. Co.. \:\H V. S. 'u\7, r>47 ; N. S. 21S; fox, r.l4. rA't. :i» K. K7: Hiirton v. Strutton, 40— n.'lHwan- A niiilw.n Cnniil 12 I'.d. Ucp. tfl'ti. Co. V. (lurk. 1.5 Wall. .U 1 :i2.'{ ; 20 11^5 Wll \'l' CONS'! I'ri'I'I'.S \ V \l,ll> IK \l)i:.M \UK. f§''>0 tlirop jxTsoiis oil the saiiio or n sitiiilnr (lrs('ri{)tion of goods shall, for tlir imrposcs of this soction, Ix' decraed coramon to the trade in siifli goods." Til ap{)lyiiifr th*' statute the Hiigiish eouits have interj)roted the words "eoiiiiiioii 1o the trade" in their ordinary signifi- eaiiee. which fact makes the Eiiglisli decisions concerning iiuirks of this class valiiahle as precedents in this country. Speaking of this term, Mr. Justice Chitty siiid : "Tlie ai)j)licant's contention is tliat 'common to tlie trade' means that which is open to the trade to use, substituting another phrase, in order to bring out exactly the meaning ■which the applicant contended ought to be ])laced upon the ■words; and in support of liis contention he puts this case: Sup- posing that there is some word which has been used by the trade largely, some ten years or so, or by twenty or thirty persons before the application for registration under this Act of 1883 ; but for certain reasons all those persons, except two or three, have dropped the user; they may have recourse to the user again at any time. If, says the applicant, the term 'common to the trade' is confined to user, it must mean user at the time of the application. That Avas also the contention on the part of the respondent, that 'common to the trade' meant common user at the date when the a])])lication was made; and T think that is a very good illustration to sho-w that the legislature could not have intended to employ this term in that sense. But the true resolution of the question is very simple; the phrase 'common to the trade' is not to be inteqircted otherwise than according to the ordinary rules of grammar, and I think 'common to the trade' means exactly what it says. I can not really make use of a better term ; but I can make use of a term which T think exactly corresponds with the meaning — I do not say it is better — that it is 'open to the trade.' " ^^ In examiiiing the cases in which marks have been found to be common to a trade some cnrious instances will be found. ^^ r>l— Biirlaiul V. Broxl.urn Oil Co.. Iluddart, 21 B. P. C. 140; hi re 6 R. P. C. 482. 480. Ba-rots, Hutton & Co., Ltd., .32 R. 52 — lUnstratious of marks com- P. C. 333, 347; the word "Tower," mon to the trade. The device of a to the tea trade, Great Tower Street cat, to the ^'in trade, Boord v. T.-a Co. v. Smith. 6 R. P. C. 172; §51] llOIKINS t)N TIIADEMARKS. \'M] ^ 51. The name given an unpatented invention by the in- ventor. — 8iu*li nunies clearly should, if otherwise unobjection- able, be treated as valid trademarks in the hands of the inven- tor or his assifjns. Under the rule discussed in the next section, if the inventor patents his invention, he can not lenpthcn his monopoly's dnralion by apjilyinpr a trademark to the p;it(Mited article; his ripht to the trndemark expires with tlie life of the letters patent. "Wliere he elects to dedicate his invention to the public, his ritive name by which they are known durinpr the life of the letters jiatent becomes their popular name in the trade — the name by which they are necessarily known and distinpruished. When, therefore, the protection of the patent has expired the name is puhlici juris, and the manufacturer under the letters patent can claim no trademark in it."'^ tho drvicf tif a milkmaid, to tho picture of a swan floatinj.' upon Initt^T trade. In re An;,'lo-S\vi88 Con- water, to the flour trade, Hulte v. den.ed Milk Co., 20 R. P. C. r)09; I<,deheart Bros., 137 Fed. Rep. 492, tlib words "Bank of England," to ilOl; 70 C. C. A. 7(5; the word the sealing-wax trade. In re Hyde "Velvet," to the ice-cream trade, & Co., 7 Ch. D. 724; the words Chapin-Sacka Mfp. Co. v. Ilendler "Parchment" and "Bank," to the Creamery Co., 2.31 Fed. Rep. 5.')0; paper trade. In re Coodall, 42 Ch. D. the "saw-huck" or "crosa-har" mark, .'">0((; the words "Old Innishowcn," to the tea trafle. Castle v. Siep- to the whisky trade. Watt V. O'Han- fried, lO.S Cal. 71; 'M Tao. Rep. Ion, 4 R. ]'. C. 1; the words "Kxtra" 210. and "Coki-r," to the canvas trade, .">:{ — H. B. ChalTee Mffj. Co. v. Sil- Jn rr Ilayward & Sons, 'A L. .1. chow, l.Jl Fed. Rep. M'^. Ch. 100.3; the words "Braided Fixed M — Centaur Co. v. Robinson, 91 SUr," to the match trade. In re Fed. Rep. 889; Same v. Neathery, T'almer, 24 Ch. D. noi ; the word !>1 Fed. Rep. 891; Same v. Hughes "S<>lected," to the Ht«'el p.-n trad<>, Bros. Mfg. Co., 91 Fed. Itep. 901. In re Kiihn & Co., .'i.3 L. .1. Ch. .328; The cubcb are collected, ante, § 4.'). the words "White Swan" and the 137 WU A'l' CON.STITITKS A VALID 'Ilrej)ai'ation,"'' were lield to be puhlu-i juris upon tlie expiration of tlie letters patent covering the articles to which they were applied. Analogous to this class of eases is that where new com- binations of old elements are found, and it is sought to distinguish such a new compound or combination by joining the descrii)tive names of its constituent elements. This is best illustrated by a case where the words claimed as trade- mark were "Ferro-phosphorated Elixir of Calisaya Bark," which claim was distinctly negatived by the New York Court of Appeals, Folger, J., saying: "They may not be appropriated by one to mark an article of his manufacture, when they may be used truthfully by another to inform the public of the ingredients which make up an article made by him."'^'' For this reason the name "Acid Phosphate" applied to a medicinal preparation, "9 and "Indurated Fibre" applied to wares made of wood-pulp/'" are not valid trademarks; and the word "Bromo-Quinine" was refused registration as a trademark for medicines,*^ ^ as was also the word "Ferro-Manganese" as a mark for mineral waters.*''^ g^id the word "Bromo-Celery" for a medicinal preparation.'^^ There are cases, however, where such words or combinations of words have been held not to be descriptive. Thus the word "Cocoaine" as applied to a hair wash compounded from cocoa- nut oil and other ingredients,"^ and "Magnetic Balm" as 5;") — Linoleum Mfjj. Co. v. Nairn, 60 — Tndurated Fibre Co., v. L. R. 7 Ch. D. 834; 47 L. J. Cli. Amoskea\'0 cases last referred to are purely arbitrary and fanciful. AVe have noted that the ])atent office has refused rcfjistra- tion to an applicant offcriii;^ the word " Broino-(^uiniiH'" as the name of a nuMlicinal jircj)aratio!i. This decision is in hopeless conflict with some of the adjudicated cases. The word "Hromidia.*" as a trademark for a i-hcmical combination of chloral hydrate, bromide of jiotassium and other substances, was admitted to I'c^Mst ration and sul)se(iuently u|)held as valid, the court upon final hearings saying that the word "has no meaning whatever except as connected with complainants' business, and as associated with and iiulicativo of a soothing or soporific mixture ]irepared and sold by them.""^ The word "Bromo-Caffeine" was admitted to registration, and upheld judicially., the Court of Appeals of New York saying, per Peckham, J.: "We thiidc there is a distinction between the facts in this case and that of Caswell v. Dai'isS'^ In this case the term ]ierhaps suggests that some one among the hundreds of substance's that bromine may combine with has been used in such combination together with calTeine. There are, however, some seven dilTercnt ingredients in the plaintiff's preparation, and there is no free bromine among them, and there is no evidence as to what the substance is which the bromine (if any) had combined with before being used in the pre]iaration, and so it is ])lain that the words 'Bromo-Caffeine* do not in fact describe the ingredients or even give any clear general idea as to what they are.""" It is the general rule tkat "when an article is made that was theretofore unknown, it must be christened with a name by which it can be recog- nized and dealt in ; and the name thus given to it becomes 05 — Smitli V. Sixliury, 2.'. Hum, 7!m;. (fiiml li.arin;;) r>() F.-d. Rep. 232. 100. 00— Klc-ctro-Silicon Co. v. Trank, OR— .'■)S N. Y. 2'2:i. rit.d. supra. .'in How. I'r. IHO; KI(ftroSilic«>n (ill — KiiihIm y v. Ilrooklvn Cluini- Co. V. Hazard, 29 Hun, :«09. cal WurkH. 142 .N'. V. 107-470. 07 — Batth' 4 Co. v. Finlay (pre- liminary lii-aring), 4.') ¥vd. Ilcp. i;j«J WHAT CONSTITUTES \ VALID TUADKM AUK. f § '^"^ public property, aiul all wiio deal in the article liave llie rit^'lit to designate it by tlif name by which alone it is recogniz- able." '" Under ])ee\diar circumstances a mark, otherwise a valid trademark, will become the common i)roperty of two or more merchants, each of whom may have a rifjht to its use, [)rovided he so uses it as not to pass ofT his floods as those of one of the others entitled to use the mark. Tlius a plaintiff was refused an injunction rcslfaiiiiii^'' tlie use of the mark "Araminpo Check" to desifj:nate i)rinted cloth made at the Araminpo Mills, where the defendant showed that the cloth sold by him under the mark was the product of the same mills, and the labels used by the res])ective jiarties differed in size and color so that confusion could not result from their use.'^ § 53. The trademarked article not a trademark. — It is obvious that if a comnu'rcial rn'ticle itself could constitute a trademark, there would be little use for jjatent laws. As Judge rari)enter said, "in the very nature of the case, * * * the trademark must be .something other than, and separate from, the merchandise." '^ Nor can the article, by being colored, constitute a trademark. This is illustrated by the ease in which it Avas sought to protect a bronzed horse-shoe nail as a trademark. '^^ It is again illustrated by the attempts to hold as a trademark a "dis- tinctively colored streak in a wire rope,""^ a "rose-colored 70 — Wallace, J., in Lcclanclia aflirming s. c, 67 C. C. A. 418; 1.34 Battery Co. v. Westpni EIpc. Co., Fed. Rep. iiTl; and 9. c., 12.3 Fed. 23 Fed. Rep. 276. l^^ep- l'>2. Followed in J. A. Scriven 71— Colloday v. Baird, 4 Thila. Co. v. Morris, l.")4 Fed. Rep. 014, 130; Cox American Trademark 018. To the same effect see Dod<.'e Cases, 257. Mfg- Co. v. Sewall & Day Cordage 72— Davis v. Davis, 27 Fed. Rep. Co., 142 Fed. Rep. 288; A. Leschen 400, 402. & f^ons Rope Co. v. ^Macomher & 73— Putnam Nail Co. v. Dulaney. W'liyte Hope Co., 142 Fed. Rep. 280; 140 Pa. 20."). A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. 74— A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. Fuller, 134 C. C. A. 570; 218 Fed. V. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co., Rep. 786. 201 U. S. 166; 50 L. Ed. 710; §54] UOPKINS ON THAHEMARKS. 140 metallic capsule'" for a chainpa^no bottle.*' or a vod head with a blue tip for niatehcs."" or illustrated j)ost eards."" In the ease of an alh'fred trademark eonsistinp of the words "Merrie Christnias."' apiilied to ribbons by wravini^, .Judge Holt very correctly said, "a t radcinai-k ordinarily does not add anythinfj to the value of the ^'oods in the estimation of the buyer. It is simply a mark to identify the manufaeturer of them. • • • Of course, a trademark is sometimes im- ])ressed ujion the article sold, but 1 do not think that it ever proj^erly constitutes an element of vabic in the tiling itself.""* §54. Packages as trademarks. It is oiiually obvious that a commercial packafre can not be a trademark. In one of the early eases upon this rule, .ludirc Johnson said: "It appears that the ornamental tin jjail which the plaintiff employs is a common article in commerce, and that pails made of tin, ornamented or unornamented, are aiul have lon. 7S — Sniitli \. Kraus.-, ICO r."t <<»• v. HlakcHl.-y Novelty Co., 40 Card 4 Mach. ('<»., l.'.S K.-d. Kcp. K<<1. H.-p. .')S8. 141 WHAT CONSTITUTES A VAI.ID THADKM AKK. I § 55 ill orcliiiiii-y rii'ciiiiistaiiccs, tin' adoption oi' j)acUa^'cs of jxMMiliar i'unn and color alone, unai'C(»ni|iani('(l \)y any 2 I'.d. ll.p. Ui-p. 27)>. 1001. ni — Daviri V. Davis, 27 Ki'd. Rep. 00— RuHhinnr<> v. Saxon, 158 I'.d. »!»0. Rip VMi, .M»8. 143 WHAT coNSTrnTi-.s a vamd thadk.makk. [§58 Tlicy ciitcr into lln- lili^rafiuri of foday, not. upon tlic theory that property is clai d in tln-ni, hut iiKTcly as l)U(lt,'('.s of I'l-aiid. § 58. Words taken from the dead languages. Words inmi tlie dead hmt^uatrcs have frccjiiontly Ix'cn api)li<'d to merchan- dise and sustained as valid trademarks, as, for cxami)le, the Greek "Eureka" as a mark for shirts"'' or for a fertilizing material,"' and the Latin "Excelsior" for stoves*^ or soap."" The Latin phrase "Xe Plus Ultra" was invalid as a trademark solely heeause the i)laintiff did not show exclusive user in himself, and the words and an accompanying device were found to he common to the trade."" It has heen said hy the Canadian Supreme Court that tliere can he property in a word of a dead laiifTuage even if it he expressive of (piality,^ hut this dictum is incorrect, as ajjjiears from the authorities reviewed in the next succeeding section. A descrii)tive word from a dead language can not he other than a generic term when used as a mark for goods. Thus, on an application for registration for the word "Sanitas" for medicines, Kay J., remarked: "The truth is that if this word were applied to medicines, it would mean to any ordinary i)erson that the medicines were health medicines; that is, health-giving medicines; and that is descriptive of the quality or of the effect of the use of these medicines. Ilow is it possible that it is not descriptive?" ^ § 59. Words and phrases from modern foreign languages.— This tojiic has been fruitful of conflicting holdings. It is not nr,_Ford V. Foster. V. T?. 7 Ch. 2—Tn re Ranitas Co., 4 R. P. C. D. 611. •'"».3.3; 58 L. T. 166; Cartmell, 30."). 1)6 — Allofiliany Fertilizer Co. v. Similar reasoninp forbade the Woodside, 1 Hughes, 115, Fed. registration of "Somatose" as a Case. Xo. 206. trademark for a nourishing meat 97— Slieppard v. Stuart, 13 j.roduct; tiie Creek "Soma," gen- Phila. 117; Price & Steuart, 193. itive "Somatos," being the cquiva- 98 — Braham v. Bustard, 1 H. & lent of the English "body;" "so- M. 447. "Excelsior" applied to mat" being the root of many Eng- gun-eotton goods was not upheld. lish words and "ose" a common Steintlial v. Samson, Seb. .546. EnglisJi sufTix. In re Farben-fa- 99_Board v. Turner, 13 L. T. briken T. M. K., L. R. (1894) 1 Ch. . N. S. 746; Seb. 2.")1. D. 64.'). 1— Partlo V. Todd, 17 Can. S. C. R. 196. §59] HOPKINS ON TKVDKMAKKS. 144 settletl wliat ilianntor of words so taken will be sustaini'd as valid trademarks. The Eiijrlish eourts have consisteiilly adhered to the v\i\o annouiu-ed hy Clutty. .).. in Pais r. Stribolt: "1 am of the opinion that in referenee to an artiele prodiiecd in a forei^yn eountry ami imjiorted into En{?land. where it was previously unknown ami without a name, the word used in that foreign eountry as the eommon term to describe or denote the artiele is not a fancy name within the meaning of the aet."' For these reasons tlie Norwe«rian words "Rokel" and "Rokol" (mean- ing "beer") were iifld not valid as trademarks for beer?'' A curious ease is that of Rr Ttoihcrhnm. The house of Rother- bam of Coventry liad loiip made and exported watches to Tod & Co. of Alexandria, by wlmm they were sold, sm-h watches bearinpr upon tiieir dials the word "Tod" in Arabic characters: "Tod" as an Arabic s\d)stantive meaning "A high mountain." The Arabic word was re^'istered as a trademark, Vice-Chancellor Racon holding an order of the commissioners I)rohibiting registration of words in foreign languages invalid.* The phrase "Flor Fina Prairie Superior Tabac" was held to be a valid trademark for cigars,"' as have been the words "Tamar Indien" for lozenges,'"' "Intimidad" for cigars.' "El Destino,'* also for cigars,** "El Cabio" for tobacco," and "La Favorita" for flour.'" "Mazawattee," a compound of the Hindustani words "Maza," meaJiing taste or relish, and the Singalese "Wattee," meaning garden or estate, is a valid trademark because it conveys no meaning to any class of persons. English. Hindoo or Singalese. and has no reference to the (pndity of the goods." AVith reference to "Pepto-^Iangan." used as a mark for a mediciinil preparation. Judge Holt has said, "It seems, if 3_l)aviH V. Stribolt, "•!> L. T. 7— Cnnuicho v. Stophonson. 2.") 854; Cartm.-n. 10.'). S<.1. .T. 0'2n. 4 /„ rr Uoth.rliam, 20 W. R. R— Pinto v. IJudman. 8 R. P. C. r,03; S«.|.. fl47. 1«1; ('artm.'ll, 270. .r,_('opc' V. EvanH, L. R. 18 K(|. 9— SoHh Cipar Co. v. Tozo, 10 138; 30 L. T. N'. S. 202; 22 \V. R. Colo. 388; 20 Pac. Rep. 556. 4.*)3i S«'l.. 433. 10— M.nondcz v. Holt, 128 U. S. ft— (Jrillon V. f;u(i.iii. W. X. .M4; 32 L. Kd. .V2n 1H77, p. 14; Sell. r»32. H — /" »''' l>«'nKliiini. T.. IL (ISO.T* 2 fli T) 170. 145 WHAT CONSTITUTES A V\MI> 'l'KAI)i;.\I AKK . I § •'>!) analy/rtl by u jx-r'soii laiiiiliar with I lie (iiM-ck and (icriiiaii languages, somewhat descrii)tive, but I tiiink if would seem to the general jtublic to be an arlificial and manuraflnrcd word. '"2 The rules tlius far discussed in this sfclinn do not seem tr) api)ly to aboriginal words or sounds, 'rhe M'ord (or sound) "Oomoo, " taken from the language of tlie Australian ab- origines, was admitted to English registration by ( 'bitty, J., after a careful consideration;'-' on the other band, the word "Kokoko, " meaning "owl" in the language of the Chippeway Indians, was refused registration as a trademark for cotton goods,*-* It was held in a dictum of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the very thoroughly considered case of Partlo v. Todd, that a descriptive foreign word, or a word in a dead language not knoAvn to people in general, because it is not understood, may become the trademark of the person who first uses it upon a particular article sold by him.'"''* This theory has been affirmed by a New York state court and denied by Judge Showalter in the federal circuit court for the Northern District of Illinois, in two suits of the same complainant, involving the right to the word "Matzoon" as a trademark for a food product made of fermented milk. "Matzoon" or "IMaadzoon" appears to be the sound of the name which Armenians give to a similar article made of fermented milk in Turkey. The New York court says: "I do not think that such a term can properly be regarded as descriptive in this country. It would be absolutely meaningless to all but a little group of Armenians in the millions of inhabitants of the United States. It would be equally meaningless in most of Europe. A Choctaw word would signify just as much. To the medical profession, among whom the plaintiff sought approval for his product, and to the drug trade, the name 'Matzoon' was practically an arbitrary or fanciful designation. It was not incorporated into t^ .*3nglish language. It was derived from a language 12 — M. J. Brietenbach Co. v. 14 — In rr Jackson Company s Spanppnborp. 131 Fod. Rep. 160. Trademark, fi R. P. C. 80; Cart- 13— /n rr Burgoync, 6 R. P. C. mell. 177. 227; 61 L. T. 39 ; Cartmell, 85. l.i— Partlo v. Todd, 17 Can. S. C. R. 196-213. § 59J HOI-KINS UN TKAHK.M AKKS. HC) hartlly known here, and lo tlic vest majority of our people it nu'aiit nothing. Ilenoe the rule upon which the defciulant relics has no applii-ation here." It was arcordinply held to he a valid trademark. '" Tliat this rule is daiiolt, .'»!• I., li 1s \-\i] Ri-p. 147 WHAT CONSTl'n:TKS \ \ \l.ll) 'lUADK.MAKK. (§59 The German word "Ansat/, " niranin^' " ConipoiiiKl," has been refused registration as a Iradcinaik foe bitters,"-"' as have been the words "Chili ('()h)ro\v" (meajiiii^' red pepper in provineial iSpaiiisln, as a ti-adcniark for codiniciits.'' Vice-Chaneellor Sluidwcli lirld ;i coiiiplainaiil wlio marked Avatches maiiut'actun'd by him for tiie Turkish trade witli \ho Turkish word "Pessendede" (meaninp; warranted) in Turkisli eharacters, entitled to the exclusive ri Leg. Obs. 405; Sob. ril. 334. The word "Kthiopian" print- 23 — Broadhurst v. Barlow, W. N. ed in Egyptian characters upon 1872, p. 212; L. J. Notes of Cases, stockings was protected from in- p. 183; Seh. 411. The use of labels fringement. but in a cate of unfair printed in several languages was competition. Hine v. Lart. 10 Jur. enjoined in Siegert v. Findlsfter, L. 106: 7 L. T. 41. R. 7 Ch. D. 801; Siegert v. Ehlcrs, §60] HOPKINS 1>N TRAPK.M AKKS. 148 Family I'sc » aiul • LawnMu-o Fcmium- V'ainilicii Planner' iLnw- renco Kino Family Klaiiiicl i. but u|>tm tlic t;rouiul thai tlicy \vero nuTO words in rommon use and not ilistiiiftivc,-' iViid it is now the lixi'd ruh' of tliat oflico tliat no d.'scriptivc words reprodin-t«d in h-ttcrs from a forcii^Mi lanffimpc will lie admitted to reut.'lit rt-^ristration for tho words "Cold Lahil" produced in Hebrew eharacterH. 27 — Charles K. l)e Kcvoise ("o. v. II. 4 W. Co., 00 Atl. Kinion of Chancel- lor Walworth in Smith v. Adams, Taip'. 43.">-443: and the copy- ri;;ht case of Lewis v. Chajiman, 3 Heavnn. 133. where a delay of six yiars was luld to ditwntitle the plaiiitiir from n lief. 149 WHAT C()NSTITUTES A V\I>I1> IR AIM.M AKK. (§61 to SO holding'. It was said in 'I'— Sinper Mfp. Co. v. .lune Mfp. L. T. 3; 31 W. R. 325; Cartmell, Co., 163 l^. S. 169; 41 L. Ed. 118; .306. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Bent, 163 U. S. §61] HOPKINS ON TICVDEMARKS. li^J Ho saiil: "lu'.six'iuK-iit ur^res that tlie words 'Svmp of Kips' are descriptive, and that iM»ini>lainaiit deceives \\hn(5; Bakin;; Powder Co. V. Fyfe, 4r> Fed. Rt-p. 799; Nerve Food Co. v. Baumljach, .32 Fed. Rep. 2o.">; Anonyme, etc., .Societ*- V. Western Dis. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 417. .3S — Improved Fi;,' Syrup Co. v. California Fi;: Syriip Co.. 4 C. C. A. 204; r)4 Fed. Rep. 17'>17«. It is very didleult to undc-rntand how tlie e<»urt eoulil eonelude that "Syrup <»f Fi;.'H" w»H not a jieneric name. It lackH e\iry n-. V. Stearns. tlT Fed. Kep. 1008; 9. c. 73 Fed. Rep. 812-814; California Fi},' Syrup Co. v. I'utnam, (■i(; Fed. Rep 7r)0. Since the foro- },'oin}i was written, the United Stati'8 Supreme Court lia« held the mark to he deceptive. Clinton E. Worden & Co. v. California Fijj Syrup Co.. 187 U. S. r)l(5; 47 L. Kd. 282; reversin;,' Clinton K. Worden & Co. V. California Fi;; Syrup Co., 42 C. C. A. 383; 102 Fed. Rep. .3.34; the latter allirmin;; the injunction ^.'ranted in Uminr in California Yxff Syrup Co. V. Clinton K. Worden & Co.. 8« Fed. Rep. 212, and on final hearin;: in California Fi;; Syrup Co. V. Worden. it.'. F. the phiiiitiffs have no monopoly either in •Self-wnshinn* or 'Self-washer' or in the parrhnienl paper or in the spaced printing, yet. if those thinjrs in whieh they have no sole ripht are so eonibined by the defendants as to i)ass off the defendants' poods as the jdaintiffs'. then the defendants have brou{fht themselves within the old eommon-law doetrine in resjieet of whieh ecpiity will pive to the apprieved party an injunction in order to restrain the defendant from passing oflP his poods as those of the plaintiff." '•' These eases, with those eited in tiie foot-note, will sufiicicntly demonstrate the fact that the rule under consideration is not only imjiortant but well established, and that the user of a strictly peneric term will be i^roteeted in the business he has established under that term, as apainst a dishonest use of it by a eompetitor.^^ The doctrine of unfair comi>etition, by wliich the use of descriptive words has sometimes been restrained, has enprafted \ipon it this important qualification— than in no case will the use of a merely descriptive word be restrained as deceptive, unless in circumstances which show fraud on the part of the user.-*'"' The Enplish leadinp cases ujion tliis proposition are the "Camel Hair Beltinp" case.-*" to wliieh we have already re- 43_Li.ver V. r.oodwin, 4 R. V. 884; Mor}.'nii Knvtlop.' ('«.. v. Wal- C\ 402-50(5; 30 Ch. D. 1; n? L. T. ton, 30 C. C. A. 383, 8fi Fed. Rep. r»83; 30 \V. R. 177; Cartmcll, 2n \\. V. C. 14(5; Cart- K.i>. SC.^ ; Cillular Clothing' Co. v. m.-ll, 10.-,; '.lay v. I.adl t, (5 R. IV Maxt..,,. L. 1!. (18!)0) A. C. 320; v'. 130; 40 Ch. I) 0411; CO L. T. C.MKlniaii v. Bolils, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 27: 37 W. R. r.O.-.; Cartm.ll. 184; 1S3; 22 S. W. Rep. 11. Pow.'ll V. Binnin^'ham Vin.pir 4.->— Cellular Clotliin;: Co. v. Bn-w.-ry C<... L. R. (1804. 3 Ch. D. Maxton, 1.. R. (1890) A. C. 320- 449-402; R.-ddaway v. Banham. L. 'Itl. Th.- lan;,'uaj;.. of the text \a R. (IROOi A. C. 100; Brown Clum «iu<.t.(l and approved liy Ray, J., in ical Co. V. Meyer. 31 Fed. R.'H v. .TohnHon. 37 Fed. tOO. '.00. R«-p. 304; Meyer v. Bull M.dioinr 40— Riddaway v Banliam. L. R. (•„ . 7 (• (• \ .'..-.8. .'iH K TKADK-MAKK. [ § ^Jl ferred, and llic "( 'cllnlai" ( lotliin^,'" case.'' In tin- roniiiT case the defcndiuit said cxpi-cssly tliat l)y iisiiij; tlic term "Camel Ilalr Bolting,'" lie would be enabled lo sell his ^'oods as thoso of the jtlainlifl'. Each ease involved the use of a deserij)tive word. In liie beltint; ease, however, the word liad acquired an additional nieanin*;. The mere use of the words "Camel's Hair" iiad eomc to be understood in the trade as indieating belting of the i)laintiff's manufacture. It was proved in addi- tion to this that the defendant's acts were done in consumma- tion of a fraudulent dcsi<;n to sell his goods as those of the plaintifT. For these recosons the use of the words by the defend- ant was restrained. ^^ The Cellular Clothing case dilTcred from this on the facts. As in the belting case, the words "Cellular Clothing" were originally purely descriptive, being applied to a cloth of cellular structure. It was not shown that the term had so acquired a technical and secondary meaning, arising from its natural meaning, that it could be excluded from the use of every one else,^'* and it was not shown that the defendant had intended to defraud the plaintiff, or that any one had bought of the defendant in the belief that he was getting plain- tiff's goods.'^" The Cellular Clothing case demonstrates very clearly that one who takes upon himself to prove that words which are merely descriptive or expressive of the quality of the goods have acquired a secondary meaning and indicate that the goods are of his manufacture has assumed a burden which, while it is not impossible, is, in the language of Lord Davey, "at the same time extremely difficult to discharge — a much greater burden than that of a man who undertakes to prove the same thing of a word, not significant and not de- scriptive, but what has been compendiously called a 'fancy' word." 51 47— Cclhilar Clothing Co. v. Clotliing Co. v. Maxton, L. R. Maxton, L. R. (ISnO) A. C. 32G. (IS'tO) A. C. 32G-337. 48 — See opinion of Lord Hals- '>0 — Lord Watson in Cellular Imry in Cellular Clothing Co. v. Clothing Co. v. Maxton, L. R. Maxton, L. R. (1899) A. C. 320- (1899) 32G-337. 335, and Reddaway v. Banham, L. ol — Lord Davoy in Cellular R. (1896) A. C. 199, 204, .20.1. Clothing Co. v. Maxton, L. R. 4<>_Lord Halslmrv in Cellular (1899) 326-343. 5 G2] HOPKINS OK TR.VDEMARKS. 154 §62. "Distinctive names," under the Food and Drugs Act i.Iuiu' :U). liKH). Chai). :i!>l.">. :?4 Stat, at L. TOS). -Wlu'ther a name used in a tradiMuark capacity tm an article of food or drink can he hehl to bo a nii.s-hrandin}.; under the Food and Drufrs Act is a prohh^n of eonsidera])le diflicidty in some cases. The expression "distinctive names" as used in the act it- self, sec, 8, has lieen further ilhnninated by rejrulation 20, adoi)tcd October, 1{)(H). and pi-ovidiii2— rriit.-.! StHt.H V. Tliirty-Six .'i.3— Uiiito.I Stat.-H v. Thirty Botth-H, 2n.'. F. K.-d. Ucp. n:{2. c«>mi*arc 210 r<-il. Ki-p. 271. 155 WHAT CUNS'ITILTHS A V\I.II> lit MtK.M \ KK. f M'*^ a product of a jrivni kind is dist iiict i\<'|_\- known lo tliL' i/uhlic it matters not tlial the iiaiiK- liad oii;,Miially a difTerent sig- iiilkuiu".'. Tlius, soda water is a lainiliar tiade (lcscri|)ti()ii at" an ai'tiele whieli now. as is well-known, rarely contains soda in any form. Siicli a name is not to he deemed either 'mislead- ing' or 'false,' as it is in lact distinctive. Bnt nnless the name is trnly distinctive, the immunity can not he enjoyed; it does not extend to a case where an arti(de is offered for sale 'under the distinctive ;i;iine of anotlier article.' Thus, that which is not colTce, or is an imitation of cotfee, can not l)e sold as coffee; and it would not he protected hy heinfr ealled 'X's Coffee.' Similarly, that which is not a lemon extract could not obtain immunity hy hciiifr sold under the name of 'Y's Lemon Extract.' The name so used is not 'distinctive.' as it does not appro- priately distinG to tlu- i-DHsuiiifr. A systnii of coiitraits ^A' lliis Uiiul was attacked as l)»'in<: in violatinn uf tin- Sli.'nnan Act i.Iulv 'J. 1S90. V. ()47. L'() Stat, at 1.. -Oil and aniriKliiifiits). to wliii'li (!«'- fensc tlic ronrt rt'spoiulcd : "The tradt-iiiai-U laws, like the pat- ent laws, pivc tilt" nwiicr a iiioiioptily which neither the Sher- man Act nor any other Act of Con^'ress forbids. It would be a paradox to say that the exercise of a rijrht. expressly pranted by law. is unlawful." ''• lu the same case the defendant an infringer, urped the contracts in (juestion to be in violation of see. 'A of the "Clayton Act" (October 1'), 1914. c. 32*3, 38 Stat, at L. 730). reading — "That it shall be unlawful for any i)ersou enpaped in eoninierce, in the course of such eommeree, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of poods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or othei- coniin(»dities. whether }iat- ented or unpatented, for use. consumption or resale within the I'nited States or any territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular ])ossession or other i)hu e uiulcr the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a i)rice charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchaiulise. nuichinery. supplies or otlier com- modities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the (>(Tect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition. apreenuMit or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tcr.d to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." It was argued that the jjlaintifT's contracts made it impos- sible for the defendant to secure the |)lainfilT"s i)roduet. and that the plaiiitilT had actually I'cfused to sell that prodnct to the defetulant. This defense was disposed of by the court say- ing "whether that act is to be construed so as to eomi)el one to sell liis wares or manufactures to any one a|)plying therefor can not be determined in this case, as this is not an action to obtain relief of that nature, and is therefore iu)t involved."''''' '••'•>— Tr'u-tKT, J., in Coon-Cola Co. 07 C. C. A. r)7S: Cr.at At lain i.- V. HutI«T. 220 F««l. Hop. 224. 232. A: Pncifip T.a ('". v (nam Unit«'d SUt«-J«, 173 Fc-d. lU-p. 737; 157 WHAT t;c)NSTiTrTKS a vm.id 'ru\i)i:.\i akk. [§64 §64. The test of "origin or ownership." One of tlic j»ri- iiiary iiiftliods — if indeed i1 is not tlie fundamental test — in dctci'niiniii^ the validity of a Iradeniafk lias lieen broadly an- nouneed hy llie Supreme ('oiiff of the I'nited States in the.se woi'ds : "Tlie ol'lire of a trademark is to j)oint out distinct- ively the* orij^in or owiiei'shii) of the article to which it is afTixed, or, in other words, to ^nve notice who was the jiroducer. " '^^ And it has rccetdly heen said: "That such mark or symbol (/. ( ., any mark or synd)ol claimed as trademark) must be de- si<;ned, us its pi'imary object and purjiose, to distin<^uish each of the articles to which it is affixed from like articles produced by others, seems to l)e the clear consensus of all the eases which are authoritative. " •'■'* Substantially this foi-ni of expression has been emi)loyed liy the American courts from their earliest trademark decisions. Our i)rofoundly learned chancellor, Walworth, stated the rule as well as any court that has followed him, when he .said : "The eou.rt jiroceeds upon the ground that the complainant lias a valuable interest in the goodwill of his trade or business. And that having a]>propriated to himself a particular label, or .sign or trademark, indicating to those who wish to give him their l)atronage that the article is manufactured or sold by him, or by his authority, or that he carries on business at a particular place, he is entitled to protection again.st a defendant who at- tempts to pirate upon the goodwill of the complainant's friends or customers, or the jiatrons of his trade or ])usiness, by sail- ing under his flag without his authority or consent.'""'^ In the light of this statement, the words of the sujireme court assume a broader meaning. In 1S49, the year following that in which tlu> opinion last quoted from was rendered, it was said in an opinion of the Superior Court of New York City, 57 — Delaware & Iliulson Canal 20 L. Kd. 2H1; Anioskea},' Mff,'. Co. Co. V. Clark, 1.3 Wall. 311: 20 L. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. ,')4; 2.') L. Ed. Ed. 581; f) Am. I.. T. l.tti : 1 OIV. !m3 ; Lawrence Mfp. Co. v Tennessee Caz. 279; Sel). 327. Mfj,'. Co., 138 U. S. .-)37 ; 34 L. Ed. r)8 — Lurton, .T.. in Dccrin^f liar- !>!17 ; C'oluniiiia Mill t'o. v. Alcorn, vaster Co. v. Whitman-Barnes Mfj:. l.")0 V. S. 4(10; 37 L. Kd. 1144. Co., 33 C. C. A. 558, 91 Fed. Rep. 59— Partridpe v. Menek, 2 Sand. 376-378; citinp Delaware & Hudson Cli. 622; 2 Barb. Ch. 101; 1 How. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311; App. Cas. .558; Cox, 72; Seb. 91. § ()4] HOPKINS l)N TKAI>1:M MJKS. 158 tliat "tlif (iwiuT (if a li iidi'iiiai'lv lias im ri^'lit to an exclusive iisi* of any words. Ifltt-rs. lijruiTs or sNiuhols vvhicli liavc no relation to the ori^'in or ownersliij) of the ^joods. "'" And tlie same eoiirt. by the same jiid^'e (Dneri, repeated th<' statement in very nearly the same woids in l^.")?. saying' tiiat a name eoidd he ri>:htfnlly used and jiroteeted as a ti'ademark oidy "where the inune is used nu'reiy as indieatin*,' the true origin or ownershi]) of llic article ofl'ered for sale, never where it is used to desijiiuite the article itself and has IxM'ome, by adoption and use, its proper appellation."''' And in ISJJS, the Sui)reme Court of California stated the rule to he that trademarks will be protoeted "only so far as such mai'ks serve to desijrnate tlie true orij.'in or ownei'shi]) of the jroods to wliieh they are attached."''- So that when the doetriin^ as first stated by the federal supreme court was announced, it had become well settled in our jnrisprndiuu'e that a trademark must indicate origin or owiiersliip, and tlie only difficulty presented by the maxim to bench and bar is that of its apjdication to each new state of facts as it arises. It must be noted, however, that "It is. of course, no fatal objection to the validity of a trademark that it does not iiudiule the name of the mamifacturer or pro- ducer. The sifrn. synd)ol oi- mark may be jnirely fajiciful, aiul convey no information as to the name of the j^roducer. Uut the essential thing is tliat it shall lie designed and used to in- dicate the origin of the article and that all articles having the same mark conn' from a common source."''' It is self-evident that Mhile a mark may be iiulicative of origin and ownership, it nmy. because* geiuM-ic or deceptive, fall short of being a valid trademark. Hut every valid trade- mark must be indjcativ*' of orij.'-iii or ownership in the sense in which those words arc used in the decisions. 00 — AmoHkcn;.' Mf;r. Cu. v. Spi-nr. ( Maine i. 1 II(.lm<'8, 18.".; Am. L. 2 Sund. S. ('. r.lMI; Cox, HI; Scl.. T. 20; .'{ OlF. Caz. 124; Scl.. 410. 100. ?. Co. v. Tliomai* r.2: ann. 44."i. Sec nlwi f>Hf.'(HMl V. Alien 159 WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TKADKM \UK. [§G5 One who iiiiUMifact iircs i"(»i' tlir Icudr, fiiiMiisliiii;; liis j/oods in cartons liavinj; labels which icprcscnl the dealer to l)C (hrietor of the ronnnodity was tlie owner of the plaee of its produetion, and the name of that i)lace was a in-ominent and eontrollinp jmrt of the trademark. Lord Cranworth so held in the ease of a wine-trrower who used the name of his vineyard as a trademark for his wines."" And the use of the words "Con^M-ess Water" as desijinatinfr the ju-oduet of "Con- gress ISpring" was sustained on the suit of the sole owner of the springs."" § 67. When geographical names will be protected as trade- marks. — In many eases the use of peojiraphieal words lias been protected on tlie pround of unfair competition. It was so held where the complainants api)lied the word "Durham," the name of a town in North Carolina, to tobacco manufactured by them at tliat locality. The defendant, whose business was conducted at Riclimond. was enjoined from applying the word to tobacco produced by him.'"' And the usual rule by which geographical names have been ])roteeted against infringers by injunction was thus tersely stated by tlie Patent Office: "rndoubtedly courts of equity have granted injunctions to restrain the fraud- ulent use of words of this character; but the grounds of such decisions have been invariably. T tliink. the fraud of the de- fendants, and not any exclusive rijrht of tlie jilaintiffs. " "® 41 S. E. Rop. 322. Even thou^'h ■>2fi; 4.'. N. Y. 201; Cox. nnO; to the the word "Hahi;:ti" was tliat of Hiimt" ofTcct, wv La Ropiihlique an hixtoriPHl p(TKona;:c«, n'^'iatra- Francaiso v. Schultz. 'u Fod. Rep. tion was nfiiwd Ix-oauBc it was also :M ; City of Carlsltad v. Kutnow, 08 a f:«'o;.'ra|iliical name. Kx partr Ffd. Ivrj*. 704; s. v., 71 V\•^\. H«'p. Oliver, IK OIT. C;a/. 02:J: Prict- & H'w ; City of Carl>»lmd v. Sclmltz. 78 St4"uart. r)0; KHwlHtyn v. Holm.'s. Fed. Rep. 4rtO; Xothcutt v. Tur- 42 Mont. .'■.()7; 114 Par. Rep. 118. ikv. KH Ky -.UA: tl S \V. Rop. 00— Soixo V. Provozondf, T-. R. 1 21. Ch. 102; 12 -lur. X. S. 21.'); 14 L. T. 08— Rlackw.-U A Co. v. Dihroll & V S. .114; 14 \V. R. SfJ ; SH.. 2r.O. Co.. .1 Tfii;:liP8. ir,l ; F.d. Case No. 07 — ConjrTfHH A Empire Spring' l,47ri; Price A Stetiart. 10. Co. V. Ilijrh Rock Con;.'reHH Sf»ritin ii vtrv Kariu'd Eng- KiM' .I.-wiHli C'oloni/ation Aww'n v. liwh law writt-r Iuih said: "TIuto Solomon (2 1, ir.4 PVd. R«'p. 157; an> dicta in tlio Stone AI.h Carta, in InU-rnational CliecH.' Co. v. Phonix the House of Lords, wliich stijjRoat ChcfBP Co., 103 N. Y. Supp. 302. tliat a i.ractiial monopoly mijjht 72 Morrow, .T., in California Ix- a(«niir<(l of tiio uso of the name Fniit Canncrs" AHB'n v. Mycr, H>1 of a place when- goods are manu Fed. H.p. K2, citing' IMllHluiry-WaHli- factured; hut they must, it la suh hum Co. V. Ka;;le. 30 C. C. A. 380; mitt.-d, ho read hy reference to the Rfl Fed. Rep. 008-018. The hadin- fartH of the case, which watt one Knglii^h rase is the Stone AleH Can... ..f deHherat.- fraud." Kerly on Thompwm v. Mont^'omery (IH'U.. TiademarkM ( London, 1S!"4 ) , p. 44. \M \V1I\I' CONSTlTrTKS A V\Mli 'IK \Iii:.M AKK. [ § ^^ Tilt' Siiprt'iiic ('(iiii'l of the riiiti-d Stati-s lias clearly cxfluded peojjjrapiiical iiaiiM's from use as tcclinical trademarks. It was said by Mr. .Iiistiee .Jackson : "Tlie general principles of law ajjpliealde to tiademarks, and the conditions under Avhich a party may establish an e.xclusive right to the use of a name or symbol, are well settled by the decisions of this court, • * * which • • * establish the following general proj)ositi()ns : • • • (;]) That the e.xclusive right to the use of the nuii'k or device claimed as a trademark is founded on priority of approj)riation ; that is to say, the claimant of the trademark must liave been the first to use or employ the same on like articles of production. (4) Such trademarks can not consist of words in common use as designating locality, section, or region of country."'^ Tiie reasons for this rule have been more fully expressed by Mr. Justice Strong, in these words: "No one can claim ])ro- teetion for the exclusive use of a trademark or tradename, which would ])ractically give him a monopoly in the sale of any goods other than those ])roduced or made by himself. If lie could, the ]iublic ■would l)e injured rather than jirotected ; for competition would be destroyed. Nor can a generic name, or a name merely descriptive of an article of trade, of its qualities, ingredients, or characteristics, be employed as a trademark, and the exclusive nse of it be entitled to a legal protection. * * * lie has no right to appropriate a sign, or a symbol, "which, from the natuiT of the fact it is used to signify, others may employ with eijual truth, and therefore have an equal right to emi)loy for the same purpose. And it is obvious that the same reasons which forbid the exclusive ajipropriation of generic names, or of those merely descriptive of the article manufac- tured, and which can be employed with truth by other manu- facturers, apply Avith eqnal force to the appropriation of geo- grajihical names designating districts of country. Their nature is such that they can not jioint to the origin (personal origin "> of the articles of trade to which they may be applied. * * * It must be considered as sound doctrine than no one can apply the name of a district of country to a well-known article of commerce, and obtain thereby such an exclusive right to the 73 — Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, i:>0 U. S. 4G0; 37 L. Ed. 1144 §68] IIOI'KINS ON Tl{ V1'I:M AHKS. 164 application as to prevent others irilmliiiiii^r tin' district, ur deal- ing in siniiljir artirlcs ('(tiniii^r from tin* district, from truthfully nsin^ the same ilcsi^Muition." ' ' Is it not a rcasonaltle i-onrlusion from these swid tlu- kiutlrcd ca.ses whirh wo have heretofore examined, that there can he no teelmieal trach'mark in a pcojjraphieal luime? To the author's mind that eonclusion i.s inevitable, and there is but one ehiss of jreofrrai)liieal names which are to be excepted from the operation of the rule, namely, those ai)i)lied to a natural j>roduet and its sole ]daee of production. The name so used may very jiroperly be a trademark, indicative of the origin and owner.shij> of the natural product, and at the same time indicatinjr the locality of its production. Here the name undoubtedly is a trademark if there is but one owner of the entire locality, and the courts have uniformly so held.''' The same scientific objection to jrcojjraphical names as trademarks obtains as in the case of proper names. They are {generic, in that every manufacturer who sees fit to locate in that city or vicinape and inaufruratc a com])ctinfr business has an equal riprht with all those who have preceded him in the locality, and all those who may thereafter so locate, in usiii. nss ; .3.'> 7.'>— City of Cnrlwlmd v. Sihiiltz, How. Pr. 108; Cox, 404; Delaware 7« Fi'd. R«-p. 4(l'i; City of CnrlH- & Hudrton Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 l.ad V. Kutnow, 71 F.-d. U.-p. 107; Wall. .'U 1 : 20 L. Kd. r.Sl ; N.-w York nffirmin;.' 07 Fed. Ri'|). 704; Hill v. Ccmmt Co. v. Copluy (.Vmont Co., Le that tlie use of a geo- graphieal nauic. by one not residing or manufaeturiiig within the loeality named, amounts t(» a mere i-oUateral misrepresen- tation. Thus. tlu> fact that oiu« of the mills of maiuifacturers who are joined in an action to rcsfi-ain the fraudulent use of the luime of the city in which they are situated, is situated outside tlie limits of the city, is not a har to e(piita])le relief, when the mill is ])raclically a portion of a plaid, the remainder of which is within the city.''' There is a class of words usually treated as "geographical names faneifully used" that have been treated as trademarks. So of "Alderney" oleomargarine.''- "Vienna" bread. **•' "fier- man" sweet chocolate ("Cierman" being the name of an in- dividuaH.''^ l>ut in their last analysis. Iho "fanciful u.se" aseribed to those words by the courts is simply a convenient excuse for avoiding the harsh doctrine of Mtnilidttdii Medicine Co. V. Wood. The misrepresentation may be implied from the language employed though not in ex|)ress words.^^ § 70. The right to complain of unfair use of geographical name. — The right to use the name of a locality in the maiuifac- ture and .sale of goods is a general right of all who manufae- ture in that locality."^" It therefore follows that where any- one not living in that locality uses its name to indicate his merchandise, he is resorting to a triek to divert business from the dealers in the same kind of merchandise who in fact live in the loeality and honestly use its name as a mark upon their goods.**" Co. V. Kli P.ttijolm (Vrcal Co. (li, 8.">— Prinfc Mf^'. Co. v. Prince's 72 F«'d. Hep. !t. !>!>(). 17 L. U. A. 129. Mills Co. V. Kuk'"". "" •''•'•• '^*P s(l— I'illsl.ury-Washliurn Co. v. flnS. .30 C. C. A. :m\, r,H v. S. App. Ka^M.-. SC K..1. K.p. (lOS. 30 C. C. 400. -41 L. R. A. 10-2. A. .380. 82— Laufc-rty v. Wlir.lrr, f,.? Kt—lhiil. "A jialpal.!.- tri.k." it Tlow. I'r. 488. «aH ti-rmi-d l.y CrcHliaiii. .1.. in H:{_pi,.iH<.|inianii \ Scliiick- Soiitlurn Wliite Lead (•> v. Cary, mann. 02 How. I'r. Jt2. 2:. F.d. H.p. 12.-|127. California K4_Walt.r Raki-r 4 Co. v. Hak«T, Fruit CannerH* A»8*n v. Mycr, 104 77 F.(l. F{.-p ISI. F.d. Hep. 82. Ifj7 WHAT COXSTlTUTliS A VAhlD 'I'KADK.M AKK. [§71 The action to restrain such un uiii'uir competition may be hroij^'ht cither by one*^** or all ^'* of the mercliaMts who are en- titled to the use of llic iiaiiic of tiie locality and arc usin{^ it npon the same class (if iiici-cliandisc. § 71. When relief will be granted against fraudulent use of geographical names. It would he a vain task to cnuinciate the \arious forms of misuse of geo{J:rai)hical names which liave been enjoined. An examination of the cases will show the versatility of the fi-audulent dealer in devising scliemes to deceive the public and deprive the b^pritimate dealer of his trade. The ])rintiii}r of an American label in tlie Frencli lan- frnajre lias been treated as evidence of nnfairnesf? in compe- tition against Frencli exporters to the T"^nitcd States;"" and so of the manufacture of 'Tanadian Type" whiskey in the United States, to be sold as a substitute for "Canadian Clnl);""' and the statement upon a jiackage that its contents were "(Miicorien Kaffee aus der fabrik von E. B. IMuller & (\)., in Roulers (Belgien)," Avas held to be misleading and unfair where the facts showed that the only part of the manu- facture done in Belgium was to "harvest" the chicory root, the other processes being done in the United States.''^ In brief, it is particularly true of the subject under discussion that "a court of equity keeps pace with the rapid strides of the sharp competitors for the prize of public favor and insists that it shall be Avon oidy by fair trade." ^^ Some of the cases are cited in the footnote.^"* 88— Newman v. Alvord, 49 Barb. 00— Klotz v. Ilecht, 73 Fed. Rep. 588; 35 How. Vr. 108; Cox, 404; 822. 51 N. Y. 180; 10 Am. Rep. 588; 01— Hiram Walker & Rons v. Klotz V. Heclit, 73 Fed. Rep. 822; Crulman, 224 Fed. Rep. 725; Scheuer v. Muller, 20 C. C. A. 161; Hiram Walker & Son v. Grub- 74 Fed. Rep. 225; Gage-Downs Co. man, 222 Fed. Rep. 478 V. Featlierl>one Corset Co., 83 Fed. 02 — Scheuer v. Muller 74 Fed. Rep. 213; Southern Wliiti- Lead Rep. 225-228; 20 C. C. A. IGl. Co. V. Coit, 30 Fed. Rep. 402; A. 03— R. H.inisch's Sons Co. v. F.' Pike MifT. Co. v. Cleveland Stone Boker, 86 Fed. Rep. 765-768. Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 806. 04 — Anheuser-Busch Brewing 80— Pillslmry-Washhum Co. v. Ass'n v. Piza. 24 Fed. Rep. 140; Eagle, 86 Fed. Rep. 608; Key West A. F. Pike Mfg. Co. v. Cleveland Cigar Mfrs. Ass'n v. Rosenldoom, Stone Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 806; South- 171 Fed. Rep. 206. crn White Lead Co. v. Cary, 25 § 72] IIOI'KINS UN rUAl>KM.\KK>. 1G8 §72. Proper names as trademark. — It is a bcli'-oN idciit l)roi)«»sition that every oiu' luis tlie rijjlit to use his own munc for purposes of tnule. It was held by N'iee-Chaneellor Wood that a man's own name niijrht be his trademark even when nniteil with other words, themselves generic and hence in- eapable of exelusive appropriation. In sustainiii}; the words "Ainsworth's Thread" as a trademark lie said: "Is not a man's name as stronp: an instanee of trademark as can be sng- pested? — subject only to this inconvenience, that if a Mr. Jones or a Mr. Brown relies on his luime, he may find it a very in- adequate security, becau.se there may be several other manu- facturers of the same name.""'' But any name may be used by any one who cares to designate himself by it, and in this sense a proper name can never be an essential ])art of a trade- mark,"'" because, as we have seen, a valid trademark must be exclusive, as apainst all tlie world. The decisions as to this arc conflicting, very confusing, and in many instances the result of careless use of lanpuape. Thus riiancellor Westbury said : "It is true that a name or the style of a firm may by lonp usape become a mere trademark."-'" In another case the same learned chancellor said: "A name, thouph oripinally the name of the first maker, may in time become a mere trade- mark or sipn of (puility, and cease to denote or to be current as indicatinp that any ])articu]ar ])crson is the maker. In many cases a name once alTixed to a niatiufactiircd article continues Fed. Rep. 12.-); .^amc v. Coit, :{!» 'in-. \. S. 20"); 14 L. T. N. .S. 220; Fed. R«'p. 402; City of Carlsbad v. 14 ^^■. U. 303; Seb. 2.-)7. Thackeray, Cu Fed. Rep. 18; Calm '.Mi — "In u tedinicnl sens •. there V. fJottsrhalk, 2 X. Y. Supp. 13; cim be no trademark in the name Hiram Walker & Sons v. Mikolaa, of a person, becatise all such 70 Fed. Rep. 0.->.->; Von Miimm v. names are generic, and because Frash, .'iO Fed. Ri-p. R.'JO; Leu v. spcakin;,' in a general sense, every Wolff, 1.-) Abli. I'r. N. S. 1 ; 40 IIow. ju-rson has the riglit to use his Pr. 147; Sel). 4(»7 ; Anhruser-Biisch own name for tlie purposes of Brewing Co. v. Fred Milh-r Brew- trade." Davis, .1., in Drake Aledi- ing Co., 87 Fi'd. Rep. 804; Manito- eine Co. v. Clessner, 08 Ohio St. woe Pea-Packing Co. v. William 337; 07 N. E. Rep. 722. Numwn & Sons, 93 Fed. Rep. 100; 07— Leather Cloth Co. v. Amer- 3.'. C. C. A. 207. lean Leather Cloth Co.. 4 DeO. J. & O.V-Ainsworth v. Walmsley. L. S. l.tTU'i; Seb. 223. R. 1 Vai 518; 3.-I L. .1. Ch. 3.V2; 12 169 WHAT CONSTITUTKS A VAMD lU A l»l .M AKK. [§73 to be used i'(»r j^'ciicrat ioi i al'tcr llic death of llic individual will) lirsl allixed it." '•''' In the first named case, any one named "Ainsworlh " nii^dit la\vfully use the word as a trademark. He wouhl l)t' restrained only where he resorted to unfair conijjetition by so preparing' or advertislnj,' liis thread as to deeeive custoniei-s into the belief that they were buying' the thread made by another Ainsworth. As to the dieta of Lord Westbury, they are meaninp:less, for tlie same reason. If a man's name is not a valid trademark for liis floods in his life- time, because any one of the same name may use it for the same purpose, how ean it i»ossi])ly become a trademark in the use of his successors after liis death? §73. "Secondary Meaning" doctrine applied to proper names. — The theory upon wliieh jjrojjcr names are ])rotected in equity has been thus admirably stated: "A surname is not the subject-matter of a technical trademark. Tliis is due to the fact that it can not be a clearly distinfruishinj^r mark on goods, inasmuch as any one bearing the imme has a right to use it in connection with property of his manufacture. It may, how^ever, by approju-iation aiid actual exclusive use, in course of time come to denote in the minds of the i)ublic, the i)roduct of some particular person or factory or l)usiness, and thus ac- quire a secondary signification. Such a secondary signification, when established, is the subject-matter of exclusive right." »" To this may be added the very apt dictum of Judge Baker: "If his trade creates a new meaning for the name, then he is entitled to just as full i)rotection in the use of that mean- ing as if that were the only one. Others may use the common word in its common meaning, but they can not use it in the ]>articular meaning created by the complainant." ^ As to this doctrine, as recognized in the English cases, we find this admirable summing up by Lord Parker: "Independ- ent of any trademark legislation, whenever a jierson uses upon or in connection with his goods some mark which has become 08_HalI V. Barrows, 4 DoO. J. & Chickcrin;: A Sons. U\ C. C. A. S. ir.O; 3.3 L. J. Ch. 204; 10 Jur. :.3S. .->42; 21.-. Yvd. R<-p. 490. 494. N. S. f).-); 9 L. T. X. S. .-)01; 12 W. 1 — Hanover Star Millin.s Co. v. R. .322; 3 X. R. 259; Sol). 21.'i. Allen & Wheeler Co., 12.) C. C. A. 9n_Mack, .T., in Chickerin-' v. .".l"': 20S Fed. Rep. .-.13. §74] IIOI'KINS «»N TUAI>K.M AKKS 170 genernlly kiu»\vn to tlu' tnulo or to tlu' publif as his nuirk. and thus operates to distiiiKuisli l»is ^joods from tlio goods of other persons, he is entitled in ecjnity to an injiinetion against the user of tlie same or any eolorahle imitation of the same whieh is in any manner caleuhited to deceive the trade or the pnblie. E(juity has never imposed any limitation on the kind of ^vord entitled to this protect i(»n, hnt in every ease it has to he i)roved that the mark has by nser beeonie in fact dis- tiin'tive of the plaintilT's goods." - §74. Names of celebrities. -Far different is the rule as to names whii-li are those of celebrities, their use as trademarks being universally recognized.'' Yet here the scientific objec- tion remains that any one bearing the name of the ill-fated Corsiean vould liave the undoubted right to manufacture "Xapoleon" cigarettes, not^vithstanding the prior a]ipropria- tion of that word as a trademark by another mainifaeturer. If the words "Emi)eror Napoleon" were so appropriated, they would undoubtedly be good as against the world. < 2 — Rejjistrar v. I)u Cros. Ltd.. s:{ L. J. Ch. 1. 3 — " 'RopT Williiimrt,' thou^'h the iiamr of a fumous pt-raon, lon^' since dea-J. is. aa applii-d to cotti' so applied the namt-s of Wasliin;:- ton, Greene, Perry, or of any oilier her\>. Vr. N. S. 410. 4 — The learned F.n^'Iish harris- t<-r S<"haHtian, in his work on trndi- trary .> is tin- important part of the name, heyond wliich many pcrs08; Montgomery v. Tliompson, (1891) App. Cas. 217; Rogers v. Rogers, h?y §76] nOPKlN'S ON TKA1»K.MA1U-:S. 172 to this restriction a man will ni'vrr hv ri'slrainccl from the full enjoyment of iiis name, whether that name be that of his par- ents or adopted li.v himself. As stated by Turner, L. J.: "Where the defendant sells goods under ills own immc, and it happens that tlu- iilaintilT lias the same iiauu\ it does not follow that the lU'fenilant is st'llin-; his goods as the goods of the plaintill". It is a (luestion of evidence in each ease whether there is false representation or not." • Hence we see that the subjeet of tliis scc-tion is more proi)erly treated iinder the head of unfair eomi)etition, and it is therefore considered in that connection in the next section. ^76. The use of proper names in trade.— We have in the preceding sections given some consideration to tiie subject of proper names, considered with reference to their exclusive approi)riation for mercantile purjjoses. The conclusion reached was that in a scientific sense there can be no trademark in a pr()i)er name, because all i)roper names are generic. The author believes that this rule is well sustained by the reasons heietofore given at length. In their any-ety to effect per- fect justice the courts havt fretjuently said that such words were valid trademarks,^ but the reasoning of the opinions indicates that the use of the language adopted was careless and erroneous. The pi-ojier method of reading the class of Conn. 121; .'">", Am. Kep. 78; 33 Alb. Sin;.'.r Mf^-. ( ... v. 15. iit. ir.3 U. S. L. J. 70; Oilman v. Ilunm>\vi-ll, 20."); 41 1.. \'A. KU. 122 Mass. 139; Cox, r)41; Mem-i-- 7— Burgess v. BiirKoss, 3 DeG. M. ly V. Mi-ni-oly, 02 N. Y. 427 ; 1 Hum. : (5. 85)(5; 22 L. .1. Ch. «7.'>; 17 073; 2 Thomp. & C. 540; 02 N. V. .lur. 2!»2; 21 L. I". O. S. .'.3; Cox, (17 Sickt'ls), 427; 2U Am. Rt-p. 117. A man can not si-U liis own 489; 2 Am. L. T. N. S. 482; Di^. nam.- to aiiotlu-r for tlu' purpose 472; PillHl)ury v. rillsbury. 21 V. <>f carryiii;,' on a rival trad.- against S. App. 3H.">-404; Lawrence Mfg. Co. another bearing tlie name so at- V. TennesstH- Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. tempted to be uwil. Melaclirino v. .137; 34 L. K<1. JMI7; 31 Fed. Rep. Milaibrino Cigarette Co., 4 R. P. 770; Brown Cb.-m. Co. v. Meyer. 139 C. 21.'.; Cartm.dl, 223. V. f<. 540 ; 3.') L. Kd. 247: 31 Fed. 8— Standinger v. Standinger, 1ft R<-p. 4.'i3; Coats v. Merrick Tiinad Leg. Tnt. S.!; Fulton v. S.ll.rs, 4 Co.. 140 V. S. .'".02; .17 L. Ed. 847; Br.'WB. 42; Cand.e v. D.ere. ,-)4 111. 4.-. Off. r.az. 347; Singer Mfg. Co. v. 439; TTowe v. ITowe Sewing Ma- Larw-n. F.-d. Caw No. 12902; 8 Bin- ebine Co., .-iO Barb. 230; C.illis v h-ll, l.'.l-l.'i3; Price 4 SU-uart, 72; ITall. 3 Br.ws. r.n9. 178 WIIAl' CONSTITUTES \ VAI-Ih T|{ \I>|;M AltK. [ § 7les of unfair competition we can now undcrtiiUe to classify what we may term, for want of a better j)hraseolojry, the i)roper name cases. (a) AVhere tiu> defendant is usin|^ his own name in ^n d faith. In these eases there is no unfairness in the competi- tion between the jiarties, and the defendant will not be re- strained.'^ 11 — Mattcson. J., in Harson v. llalkyanl. 22 H. I. 102; 40 Atl. Ri-p. 271. 12— Chadwick v. Cov.'ll, l.')! Mass. 1!)0; 23 X. K. Rvp. 1008; I! L. R. A. 839; 21 Am. St. Rep. 442. 1.3— A.-tna Mill i EKt. ("o. v. Kramer Milling Co., 82 Kan. 070; 109 Vav. Rep. 692. 14 — Burp'Srt V. Bur;res8, 3 Ded. M. & G. 80(5; 17 .Tur. 2!'2; Sell. 117; Coats V. Piatt, 17 Lep. Int. 213; Falier v. Faher, 49 Barb. 3r.7 ; 3 Ahh. I'r. X. S. lir.; Cox, 401; Sell. 278; Wolfe V. Burke, JG X. Y. 11.'); Mene«ly v. Meneely, 1 Ilun, 3(57 ; 02 X. Y. 427; Seli. 472; Decker v. Decker, .')2 How. Pr. 218; Seh. .')2."); Prince Metallic Paint Co. v. Car- iM.n Metallic Paint Co., Sel.. .')73; RodgerH v. Xowill, Hare, 32.'); Sob, 82; Clark v. Clark, 2.') Barb. 70; Cox. 200; Seb. 148; ComHtock V. Wbite. 18 TIow. Pr. 421; Cox, 232: Binninpr v. Wattlew. 28 How. Pr. 200; Cox, 318; S.b. 240; Hiirfly V. Cutter, 3 (XT. Ca/.. 408; Seb. 427; Carmicbel v. Lalmier. 11 R. I. .39.'i ; 23 Am. Rep. 481; 10 Alli. T.. .T. 73; S<'li. rt2\ : Cilmiiii \ Tfniine- well, 122 Ma.sfl. 1.39; Seb. 041; Mc- Lean V. Fbniinf,', 90 U. S. 24"); 24 L. Ed. 828; 13 Off. Gaz. 913; Brown Chemical Co. v. Me\er, 13'> U. S. .')40 ; 3.-) L. Ed. 247 ; Cox, Man- ual, 720; Wm. Rogers Mfp. Co. v. Rofiera & S. Mfjj. Co., 11 Fed. Rop. 49.-.; Lundreth v. Landn-th, 22 Fed. Rep. 41; \\ m. Ro;,'er.s Mfj:. Co. v. R. \V. Ro{;r9 Co., 00 Fed. Rep. .')6; ariirmed, 17 C. C. A. 07; 70 Fed. Rep. 1019; Wm. R(.;,'.rs Mf^'. Co. V. Rofrers, 84 Fi'd. Rep. 039 ; Rogers V. Taintor, 97 Mass. 291; White v. Tro\vl)ridjrc, 210 Pa. 11; 00 Atl. Rep. 802; Gordon Hollow Bbirtt Grate Co. v. Gordon. 142 Mich. 488; 10.-) X. W. Rep. 11 IS; Donnell v. IIerrin;:-Hall-Marvin Safi- Co., 208 V. S. 2(i7; r,2 L. Ed. 481; Tliynne V. Shove, L. R. (1890) 4.') Cii. D. r)77-.'')82; Inventor Pul). Co. v. D()i)in- 8on, 82 Fed. Rep. M; Marcus Ward Si Co. V. Ward. If) X. Y. Supp. 913; 01 llun. (52.-); Druniniond Tobacco Co. V. Randle. 114 111. "2; 2 X. E. Rep. .130; X'-..ark Coa^ Co. V. S|)an«:.r. .'54 X. .1. V.i\. 3-)4 ; 34 Atl. Rep. 932; American Cereal Co. v. Eli Pettijohn Cereal Co. (2), 76 Fed. Rep. 372; 22 C. C. A. 336; r \VII\'l' CONSTITUTES A VALID TU \l)i;.\l \,1CK. f§77 As slated hy Jiidtrc Scaiiiaii, of the use of a |iroj)or nainad v. Seliultz. 78 Fed. Rep. 400. In the last named case .Tud^'e Coxe dcHifjned a label for tlie (lefendatifs use. a ropy of wliieli is eml)odied in his opinion. In another case .Tud<,'e .MePherson ^.'ranted an injunctive order direct- ing the defendant's initials and lo- cation to he printed or written in type of specified relative size. Baker V. Sanders, 07 Fed. Rep. 048. A similar direetioii is contained in International Silver Co. v. Wm. II. Rofjers Cor])or:ition, 00 X. J. Va\. 110; 57 Atl. Rep. 1037; reversed in International Silver Co. v. Wm. H. Roj;ers Corp.. 07 X. J. F9S, 3 DcC. M. A (!. H!m; ; 22 L. J. Ch. (uf); 17 .liir. 2U-2- 21 L. T. .'>3; Sol). 117; Taylor v. Taylor, 2 Eq. R. 200; 23 L. J. Ch. 2.-)-); 22 L. T. 271; Sd). 124; Clark v. Clark, 2r» Bar!.. 7(5; Cox, 200; Seh. 148; Stoncbrakcr v. Stonchrakcr, 33 Md. 252; Sfl). 333; Holmes, Booth & Haydt'iis v. Holmes, Booth & At- •vvood MfKMAUKS. 178 •'EvtM-y oMo lias tlio alisolulr ri^'lit to msi« his own name honestly in liis own business, even thouf^h he may thereby ini'idfutally int(MftMi' witli and injure the business of another having' the same name. In sueh ease the ineonvenienee or loss to whirh tluise havin;,' a comnioii li^'ht aire subjeeted is dam- uum ai)S(jur injurui. But. althou^rh lie may thus use liis name, he ean not resort to any artifiee or to any aet eaiculated to mis- lead the i)ublie as to the identity of the business firm or estab-' lishment, or of the artiele pnxhiced by them, and thus jirodueo injury to the other beyond lliat which results from the simi- larity of name. Where the name is oiu^ which has previously thereto come to indicate the source of numufacture of j)artie- ular devices, the use of sueh name ])y another, uiuiccompanied with any precaution or indication, in itself amounts to an ar- tifice calcidated to j)roduee the deception alluded to in the foregoing adjudications." -^ "A person may use his imme, which lie has the right to use, in such a way as to deceive, and, when he does this with fraud- ulent intent, may be liable. It is a question of evidence."-'' In a flagrant case the defendant has been absolutely en- joined from the use of his own name in connection with the manufacture and sale of artificial limbs.-'' But the decree was modified on appeal, jiermitting the use of his name i)rovided an exi)lanation was attached.-" (c) Where the defendant is a corjioration whose corpor- ate name includes a proper name and was selected by its in- corporators with the intent and for the jmrpose of deceiving 142; R2 Tar. R.p. r>C,4 -. Gordon Hol- low Blast Crati- Co. v. f'.ordon, 142 Mich. 48S; 10.') X. \V. H.p. 11 18. 24 — Sinpcr Mff;. Co. v. .June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 1(H»; 41 L. Kd. 118; RiiBhmon- v. Saxon, l.'»8 Fed. R«'p. 4!»n, r»09. "A man may not iiw hirt own nami' to Hr<-om|iliHh a fraud. dcHi(rnod or con- Ktnirtivc." .Ii-nkinH, .F.. in Stuart v. K. ('. Sti'wart Co., HI Fy a defendant with whoae Jninin«-HH no om? of tliat namu is connected is evidence of fraudu- lent intent a8 a^'uinst an older liusine88 hearing; a similar name. Scanlan & Rartell v. Williams, 114 S. W. Hep. H(>2; .'»:{ Te.\. Civ. App. 28. 2.') — Uay, •!.. in Allen v. Walton W 1 & Metal Co.. 178 Fed. Rop. 287. 20 — .7. K. Kowley Co. v. Rowley, 1.-.4 Fed. R.p. 744. 27— Rowley V. .1. F. Rowley Co., nil Fed. Hei. ill; 88 C. C. A. 258. 17!) WHAT CONSTITCTES A VAMI> 'lUAHKM AKK. §77 the puhlii- into tlif Ix'licl' that its j^'oods ai'c the j^'oods of the plaint ilT. Such liaiids will of course be enjoined.-'* {(I) Whore the dcfendanl lias, solely for the purpose of unfair trade, seeui'ed from some person liavint,' tlu; same name as tlie i)laiiitiiT a license to use that name for th(^ jjurpose of fraudulently eompetiuf,' with the |)laintiff. This, being an artifice in promotion of unfair trade, renders the defendant liable to injunction.'-"' In such a ease, the licensor is a joint tort-feasor with tin' licensee.'"' Finally, in regard to the assignment of the right to use one's name, the law is well settled that a man can so assign the right to use his name subject only to the general rules of j)ul)lic j)olicy governing contracts in restraint of trade."^' "It is -well settled that a person Avho has adopted and used his surname as a trademark, or tradename, may transfer the same with the goodwill of a business and thereby divest him- self of the right to use his name in connection with .such a business. " •'^2 Having .so divested himself "he may, of course, be enjoined from using his name in that business. "^3 The right to use the name Booth, in connection with a theatre, described in the assignment of a lease as "Booth's 28 — \Vm. Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Kogera, 73 Ofl. Gaz. !)7U; 84 Fed. Wvp. ()3!); Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Rog- ers & Spurr Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 405; Higgins v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 462; 39 N. E. Rep. 490; 43 Am. St. Rep. 769; Plant Seed Co. V. Michel Plant & Seed Co., 23 ]\Io. App. 579; Garrett v. T. II. Garrett & Co., 24 C. C. A. 173; 78 Fed. Rep. 472; Clark Thread Co. v. Armitage, 21 C. C. A. 178; 74 Fed. Rep. 936; Stuart V. F. G. Stewart Co., 91 Fed. Rep. 243; reversing s. c., 85 Fed. Rep. 778; Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 393; 78 Pac. Rep. 870; Nesne v. Sundet, 101 N. W. Rep. 490; 03 Minn. 299. 29 — Melachrino v. Melachrino Egyptian Cigarette Co., 4 R. P. C. 215; Cartmell, 223; Sawyer v. Kel- logg, 7 Fed. Rep. 720 ; Cox, Manual-, 681; R. Heinisch's Sons Co. v. Bo- ker, 86 Fed. Rep. 765; Garrett v. T. H. Garrett & Co., 78 Fed. Rep. 472; 24 C. C. A. 173. 30— Wm. G. Rogers Co. v. Inter- national Silver Co., 55 C. C. A. 83; 118 Fed. Rep. 133. 31— Brewer v. Lamar, 60 Ga. 656; 47 Am. Rep. 766. 32 — Knapp, J., in Gutli v. Gutli Chocolate Co., 140 C. C. A. 410; 224 Fed. Rep. 932; affirming Guth Chocolate Co. v. Guth, 215 Fed. Rep. 750. 33— Lurton, .7., in Royal Baking Powder Co. V. Royal, 58 C. C. A. 409, 508; 122 Fed. Rep. 337, 346. § 77] HOPKINS ON TRADEMARKS. 180 TluMtro, " was lu-ld ti) pass to Ihr assij^in'c ht'i-ausi' it liatl liccoine aflixcd to the cstablislimcnt ; •" uiul it may follow tliat proper namos nttaclietl to or used in coniieetioii w itli phuH-s of auuise- uiont utMu'rally would i)ass to an assignee without spciific enumeriUion in the instrument of assignment. It was suggested in the ease of r/im/,i/ v. Murpliy, involving the right to use the words "Christy's Min.strcls, " that if the plaintiff had seen fit to do so he eould have conveyed to the defendants an irrevocable license to use that name in connec- tion with that form of theatrical enterpri.se.'''' But in the more recent case of Messcr v. The Fadrttcs, the Supreme Court of ^lassaehusetts, Lathrop. J., dissenting, refu.sed to recognize an assignment of the name of an orchestra, holding that while the organizer and conductor of a musical organization may have some right of ownership in it, such right is purely personal, de- pending upon the personal reputation or skill of the conductor, and is therefore not assignable; and that the continued use of the name would mislead and therefore work a fraud upon the public. •'"'• "While the name involved ("The Fadettcs") is not the name of a person, tlie decision is projierly noticed here as a striking departure from the doctrine of Christ;/ r. Murphjf, supra, and from what the author conceives to be the law. The dissenting opinion of Justice Lathroji is Avell grounded on authority, and the reader is referred to it for his reasoning. Briefly, tiie court ought to havedone as has l)een occasionally done in the federal courts, namely, it should have instructed the assignee of the name "Tlie Fadettcs" how to use that name ini ts advertising matter so as not to deceive the public into a belief that tlie orchestra was still under the jiersonal direction of its former manager and director. To hold that the assignment was void was to put a premium on dishonesty. It is interesting to note that in a subsequent case the same court affirms a decree directing a defendant to clearly mark his goods so as to indicate they are not the plaintiff's.^" .14_n. r.24. MnHH. 140. 3.'i — ChrJHty V. MiirjiJiy. 12 How. .17— Flnfrp Mf^'. Co. v. riohvay, I'r 77: r,.T, K.t . S.t,. 1.17. 178 Mnsw. 8:i ; .M) N. K. Kcp. (107. 181 \VII\T CONSTITUTES A V\M.) IKADKM AUK. §77 One wiio has a.s.si;,nir(l the li^rlit to use his iiaiiic in specific trade ^vill Ix' ciijoinrd rrom iisin^' liis own iiaiiH' in that trade, in ('(Hiipctition with liis assi^'iicc, foi- such ('(Miipct itioii would be unfair and fraudulent.''' Promoters of a eor|)oration wlioso names luive been used as a ])art of the eoi-porati; name can not. be i)ern)itted to use their names in connection ^vith and as the name of a rival company. Such conduct will lie enjoined be- cause of "the injury to the party a«;grieved, and the imposition upon the public, by causing,' them to Ixdieve that the goods of one man or firm are the production of another."'''' In conclusion, the general rule underlying this (dass of cases lu'is been aptly stated as follows: "All these cases in equity dei)end ujjou an approjjriation by one person of the reputation of another, sometimes actually fraudulent, and sometimes only constructively so."'" Where competing pencil manufacturers named "Faber" en- tered into a contract defining how the name should be used by them respectively, the contract was u]>held as valid, and in the absence of proof that the defendant had wilfully violated its terms, a decree for injunction, upon the ground of unfair competition in the use of the name, was reversed.^' The mere assignment of a patent carries with it no right to the use of the patentee's name as a trademark for articles made under the patent. ^- 38 — Mevera v. Kalamazoo Buggy Co., 54 Mich. 215; Thynne v. Shove, L. R. (1890) 45 Ch. D. 577; Wood V. Sands, Scb. 4G7 ; Russia Cement Co. V. Le Page, 147 Mass. 20C; 17 N. E. Rep. 304; Kidd v. Johnson, 100 U. W. ()17 ; 25 L. Kd. 7 defense.^-'' § 79. Revocation of license to use one's own name. — When a l)erson has permitted another to build ui) a business under his name, the license may become irrevocable. It was so held by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, where the purchaser of the machinery and stock of floods of an insolvent iiartnershiji at a sheriff's sale was given permission to continue the use of the firm name. A bill was filed four years subse(piently to enjoin the purchaser from continuing: to use the name, and for an account of jjrofits. Among: other controlling: facts, it aj)- peared that at the time of the sheriff's sale the p:oodwill and firm name were valueless, and that their sole value was due to the elr"-{s of the ])nrchaser. This decision seems to be sound, and it is chiefly of value because of the distinction be- tween the license here involved, and the license which is im- plied in the case of the infrinp:er of a technical trademark, and which has been held to be revocable at any time. Mcstre 43— Dale V. SmithHOM. 12 .\1.1). TV. (McLean v. Fl.-miii;:. 'M\ V. S. 248; 237; Cnx, Ani.riniM Tradrnmrk 24 L. Kd. S2!» ) : "IJoprs" mid "HoD- C'aw>fi, 2R2. ilf'TH" (Intirnatinnal Silver Co. v. 44 — I^atlKT Clotli Co. Lt—An, "M(l..an" and "McT.an.-" V<-<\ H.p. 243; 33 C. C A 430). IH'.i WHAT CONSTITUTES A VAMD TKAbKM AitK. [ § ^^ ZJil, .]., siiid: "It is ii(i(l()ul)t('dl y tnir that a iiicr*' lifciisc with- out cousidciMt ion is dctenniiiablo at tlic pleasure of the li- ci'usoi'. liut that is not llic rule in tliis state, where tiie eiijoy- ineiit of llie license must iieeessarily !)(• and is preceded by tiie ex])en(litnfe of money. In such cases tin- license beeonies an agreement on a valuable consicb-rat ion. and is irrevocable. "■•* §80. Corporate names. The freneral rule governing the su|)ei'vision of ecpiity over the names of corporations ha.j been eoinprehonsively stated as follows: "In resj)ect to corporate names, an injunction lies to restrain the simulation and use by one coi-])()ration of the name of a prior corporation which tends to create confusion, and to enable the later eorjioration to obtain, by reason of the similarity of 7iames. the business of the prior one. The courts interfere in these eases, not on the ground that the state may affix such corporate names as it may elect to the entities it creates. l)ut to prevent fraud, actual or constructive. The jiames of corporations organized under general laws, and in most other cases, are chosen by the promoters, and it would be ati easy way to escape from the obligations which are enforced as between individuals if a corpoi-atiou were granted immunity by reason of their corpo- rate character."^" Probable confusion of business is usually a prominent factor in the dis]>osition of cases of this class. -^^ "A corporation may be enjoined from using a name or con- ducting a business under a name so similar to the name of a previously established corporation, association, partnership, or individual, engaged in the same line of business, that con- fusion or injury results therefrom."""^ "Tt is uncpiestionable that such deception may be practiced by fraudulent use of a corporate name."'^'^ 46— Harris v. Brown. 2f»2 Pa. Ifi; 40— Mount. J., in Martcll v. St. f)! All. Rop. r^86. Francis Hotel Co., Til Wash. 375; 47 — Hippins Co. v. Hippins Soap OS Pac. Rep. 11 Ifi; quoted and Co., 144 X. Y. 4(i2; 30 X. E. Rep. followed in Rosenhurcr v. Fremont 400: 43 Am. St. Rep. 760. Undertakinrr Co.. 63 Wash. .-)2: 114 48 — Drummond Tobacco Co. v. Pac. Rep. 886. Randle, 114 111. 412; 2 X. E. Rep. ;">() — Seaman, J., in Keystone Oil 536; Original LaTosca Social Club & Mfp. Co. v. BuzhT. 135 C. C. A. V. LaTosca Social Club. 23 App. D. 185, 188; 210 Fed. Rep. 473, 476. C. 96. §80] IIOI'KINS ON TKADKMARKS. 184 TIk' i'«)urts are cuiit'used in tlit-ir iiliiiiscolti^'y with rt-ffri-iu'e to the charnoter of corporate names. There can hv no trade- mark rijrht in a corporate name, for the conrhisivi* n-ason that it is not, as siu'h. api>litMl to thr suhject-mattcr of commeree. In an oarly rase .hul^'e Deady, of ()re{:fon, said, "'riic corporate name of a corporation is a tradenuirk from tlic necessity of the thinjr,'"'"' and this very j)lirase, with other dicta, has been (pioted witli approval in a nn)i-c recent ease.^'- The anthor Inis in a former section coUected the jndicial (h'finitions of trademark, and it is a scientiiie impossibility to l)ring Judge Deady "s dict\im within the scope of either of those definitions, or to extend the delinitions to inviude that dictum. Mr. Justice Clifford's definition may be referred to as makinj; the author's »l)Ositiou clearer."' ' It is entirely erroneous to treat a corporate name as being a trademark. This error lias arisen from the unfamiiiarity of the courts with the es.sential requirements of tecliiiical trademarks, and the fact that etiuitable relief had to be administered in eases where the courts had no i)recedents at hand except in tlie trade- mark decisions, which afforded similar reasoning to support their conclusions. The reason why ecjuity intervenes to protect cor])orate mimes from imitation is that they are essential parts of the being of eorj)orations. or. as expressed by the Sui)reme Court of Mis- souri, its name is a necessary element of the existence of a cor- poration.''^ As the Rhode Island court has phrased it: ''The principles upon which these cases rest are that, altliough a corj)oration may be legally created, it can no more use its corporate name in violation of the rights of others than an individual can use his name, legally ac(|uired, so as to mislead the public and to injure another. "''•'' The courts, therefore, will protect a cor- ."il — Xowhy V, Rnilroad Co., Fed. ".2 — Tnvc8ti>r Tiili. Co. v. l)ol)in- CaHC No. I<»lt4, Dimly, «U!I. "Tli.' Hon, 72 Fed. Hrp. r,(»:i. f.on. name of n corporation Iibh Ix-cn M — McL."> — .\rmin;;ton v. Palmer, 21 R. <:.HHlyi-ar'H RnMn'r Mf;;. Co., 21 F.-d. I. Htn-. 4.5 L. H. A. O."); 42 Atl. Rop. n«p. 270. 308. 185 WllAI' CO.NS'II riTKS A VAI,II> IK \l »i;.M \KK. [§8^-' poi-alioM in the use of its iiaiuc in tlic abscnci; ui" any e\]jress statulo.-y ciiactiiiciil. •'• 'I'lie exerciNC of tliis power is an en- forc'onu'iil of llic law of unfair coiiiix'tition as shown in the following .anjj^ua^,'*' of liradh'y, .].: "Fair coinpclilion in l)nsi- ness is k't^itiniato, and pr-oniotes the pnlilic ;xoo(l ; Iml an un- fair a])pr()priaf ion of ariothi-r's business, by using his name oi" t i-a(b'niark. or an imitation thereof eah'uhiled to dec^eivc (he ])ubli(\ oi- in any otln-r way, is justly punishable by dam- ages, and will be enjoined by a eourt of (Mpiity. "'" This dictum is contained in the o|)iinon in the Celluloid case, where the corporate name hapi)ened to bo the trademark applied by the corporation to merchandise manufactured and sold by it. It is a self-evident j)roi)osition that a generic word embodied in a corjiorate name is }iot entitled to ])rotcction in ecpiity. The I'ub^ was thus stated by Mr. Justice Field, in delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in a case where the Goodyear Rubber Co. sought to restrain another corpora- tion from using the name "Goadyear's Rubber ^lanufactiiring Co." Tie said: "The name of 'Goodyear Rubber Company' is not one capable of exclusive appropriation. 'Goodyear Rubber' are terms descriptive of well-known classes of goods produced by the process known as Goodyear 's invention. Names ■•vhich are thus descri])tive of a class of goods can not be exclusively appropriated by any one. The addition of the •word 'Company' only indicates that parties have formed an association or partnershiji to deal in such goods, either to ])roduee or to sell them. Thus parties united to produce or sell wine, or to raise cotton or grain, might style themselves wine company, cotton company, or grain company; but by such description they would in no resjiect imjiair the equal right of others engaged in similar business to use similar desig- nations, for the obvious reason that all persons have a right to deal in such articles and to jiublish the fact to the world. 50 — Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Doliinson, 72 F.d. Rep. f)l)3 : V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. of Industrial Mutual Deposit Co. v. Kansas, 1 X. Y. Rupp. 44; William Central :Nrutual Deposit Co., 112 Rogers IMfp. Co. v. Rofrcrs & Spurr Ky. 0.37 : 00 S. W. Rep. 10.32. Mfp. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 405; Collu- r)7— Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Ccllon- loid :\Ifg. Co. V. Cellonite :^Tfg. Co., ite Mfg. Co., 32 Fed. Rop. 94. 32 Fed. Rep. 94; Investor Rub. Co. §80] lUtl'KINS ON TUADKMARKS. 18(1 Nauu's of siu-li artirlos i-iiii not Ix* luluptt^d as Iradciiiarks, aiul ho tluM-t*l)y api»r(»|iriatt'(l to tlu' rxfliisivo ri^^lit ol any oiu'. nor will the iiirorporation of a (•oiu|)any in tlio name of an artii'U* of i-oninuTro. uitlunil other spccilicatioii, create any exclusive ri«rht to the use of the name."'''* In a leadinp opinion upon this subject, the United States Suj>reme Court, speakiuf; tliroii^rh Mr. Chief Justice Fidler, says "tlie principle that one corporation is not entitled to restrain another from usiufr in its cori)orate title a name to which others have a common ri^'ht. is sustained by the discussion in Columbia Mill Co. v. Ahoni (150 U. S. 460), and ')8 — Mr. .lustico Kitld. in (l yrar Co. v. (.Joodyoar HuIIkt Co., 128 U. S. .-)08-002: 32 L. Va\. M.l; ri-viT8iii;j s. c, 21 Fed. Ri'p. 27fi. Thus in an action Ity one fin- insur- ance company to restrain another from tlu- uw of tlu" word "Contint-n- tul" in its corporate name, the court said: "Tin- distin^^uisliin;; fcuturt" of tlif nami'H of the two incorj>orated companies is tiio word 'Continen- tal.' It is the use of tliis word liy the defendant which the com- ]dainant seeks to enjoin. It is the contention of the complainant that, hy reason of the lonii-contin- ued use of this word hy it, and l\u'. fact tliat it has huilt up a large and lucrative husiness under this diHtin;.niishing name, it has se- cured a projierty ri;_'ht in said word 'Continental,' in connection with its incor|iorated nami*. and it is entitled to tlie exclusive use of the word 'Continental,' in connec- tion witli its insurun<-e husiness. in the h4>ctions of 4lie country where it is engap-il in such husi- nesH. I'pon the showin;; made hy tlic complainant, it mi^'ht lie en- titled to tlie relief soll^'llt, Wen- the diHtin;.'uiMhin(; w«»rd ropriated l)y any one of tlieni. Tlie word 'continental' is a generic term, and it is not the policy of the law to permit the ex- clusive appro])riation of words or terms which are generic; that is, wliich pertain to a class of related tilings, and which are of general application. The right to us«« such words should remain v»'sti' same cfTivt K<>e Ooodycar i^ibber Co. V. Day, 22 Fed. Rep. 44. 187 WHAT CONSTITITKS A VALID TltADK.M AKK. [ § 80 is, we tliiiiU, necessarily upplifahli- to nil ii;mii-s j/ublici Juris." •"'" A foreign corporation ean not, by application to a court in the state in which a new corporation is being organized, secure an injunction restraining tiie formation of the new cori)ora- tion undci- the same corporate name as that of the plaintiff. But in dismissing a bill brought for such a purpose, Judge ({resliam said : "T do not say what may be done if the defend- ants succeed in ci-cating tlicii* corporation bearing the com- plainant's name, and a suit shall be brought by the complain- ant to i)i*event individuals claiming to ])c oflficers or manag<'rs of such cor])ora1ion from interfering with the complainant's business. ' '"'* In conclusion, thei-e Is no practical difference, so far as equi- table rights and remedies are concerned, between corporate names and the name of a copartnership or an individual. "There is no distinction between corporations and natural persons in the princiide. Avhich is to prevent a fraud."'"' As said by Mr. Justice Bradley, on circuit, in dealing with the names of corporations plaintiff and defcTulant, "the fact that both are corporate names is of no consequence in this connection. They are the business names by which the par- ties are knoAvn, and are to be dealt with precisely as if they were the names of private firms or partnerships. ""^^ And in a similar case, the Supreme Court of Illinois has said, "Even if the cor]iorate names of the two corporations are some- r)0 — Howe Scale Co. v. WyckofT, larfrely on tlio court. One court haa Seamans & Benedict, 198 U. S. 118; held that the names "Travelers' In- 40 L. Ed. 072; citinp America Ce- surance Company" and "Travelers' real Co. v. Eli Pettijohn Cereal Co., Insurance Machine Company" were 72 Fed. Rep. 00.3; 76 Fed. Kep. .372; so "unlike * ♦ ♦ that it was not Tlazelton Boiler Co. v. ITazelton Tri- prol)al)le that confusion will arise." pod Boiler Co., 142 111. 404; Monarch Travelers' Ins. Mach. Co. v. Travel- V. Rosenfeld, 10 Ky. Law Rep. 14; ers" Ins. Co., 143 Ky. 210; 134 S. 30 S. W. Rep. 230. W. Rep. 877. 60— Lehiph Valley Coal Co. v. (i2— Celluloid :Mfe same effect, see Baker v. man Co. v. :Modern Pen Co., 23.-i U. Baker. r>3 C. C. A. 157; 115 Fed. S. 88, 04; 50 L. Ed. 142. The Rep. 207; Howe Scale Co. v. depree of resemblance which will Wyckoff. Seamans & Benedict, 193 result in enjoining the use of a U. S. 118; 49 L. Ed. 972. corporate name of course depends § so] HOPKINS ON THAUKMAKKS. 188 what similar, yet. in tlu' abseiu-c of any iiiti-nt, art. »»r artiiu-o to mislead tlfalrrs in \\\c market or the public at large as to the identity (»f the eori)oratious, the Elgin Creamery Company has the same right to use its eorjxirate name in the transaction (»f its business tliat the El^'in l'.\itter ('nni|>any has to use its eorjxtrate nanu>. It would seem that tlie same rule should api)ly to eori)orations in this regard that obtains in respeet to natural persons; and. in the absence of any fraudulent intention or act. or any contract to proliibit it. every luitural person has the absolute right to his own luime in his own business.""-'' As to the use of a proper name of an incorporator as i)art of the corptu-ate name. Judge Lochren has stated the rule as follows: "While any person has the right to use his own name in the eonduet of his business, in describing the articles of his manufacture, and which lie is dealing in. he lu>s not the right to use the name of any other dealer; and it is well settled by the authorities that a corporation has not the right to use the name of one of its incorporators for the jjurpose of unfair competition with an older dealer, where it is likely to do him injury, and that it will not be permitted to use that name if it is the name by whicli the older article is usually called for and described.""^ A corporation can not. by securing a license from or em- ploying a person bearing the desired proper name, so use that name as part of its corjiorate name as to maintain an unfair competition with an older business employing the name.<"^ It is not necessary that the comidaiTuint be a corporation having the same corporate name. If the trade name of the com- jtlainant's product is taken as a corporate name by the defend- ant it will be enjoined.'"'" A foreign corporation (estal)lislicd in a country foreign to the I'nited States) can not enjoin the use of its name by a M— Bnk.r, J . in Kl^'in llutt.r 0.%— nnrr.tt v. T. IT. Ciirr.tt A Co. V. VAu'in Cn-anKTy Co.. I')'' HI f <> . "« l'^''' I^'P '"'-• -^ <' ^'- •'^• 127: 40 N. K. H<'p. 010. !"•> 04 — I. gc P. CiitH V. .lolin Cont;. Co. v. Bntos Xum- Thn-ad Co.. l.ir. K.<1. H.-p. 177. 170. l..rin>; Marh. Co.. 172 F.'d. Rep. To tin- Hamc rfT.-it wf David E. 802; nfTirnK.l in BatcH NnmlKTinjj Font/. Co. V. S. A. Foutz Stork Food MnrJi. Co. v. haU'H ^Iff?. Co., 17ft Co.. 103 Fc-d. Rep. 408. F"l H-p. Oftl ; 102 C. C. A. 181. 189 VIIAT CONSTITUTES S \ MAU THAOKMAUK. [ § 80 curporuiiuu cslablislicd uiulor tlio laws ol' one oi' llic liiitrd States, where laches is chargeable to it,"' I'luler a i)iMial statute of Illinois providiiij,' a imiiisliinent for any i)ers()n, company or association not incorijoralcd, assum- ing "a corporate name," relief in equity has been denied indi- viduals doing business as "Aetna Ii-on Works. '"''' And in an- other instance it has been held that individuals doing business as "Ilazleton Boiler Company" could not convey the right to use said luuue."''* In the former case, the rule is broadly laid down that in that state a copartuershii) can have no i)rop- erty in a luime importing a cori)oration. In the latter case, it was held by the Supreme Court of Illinois that a foreign corporation had no standing in the courts of Illinois to contest the right of an Illinois corporation to use the same name. Judge Jenkins has remarked that this holding "is not in accord with the decisions of the federal and of other state courts."'^ Even where the corporate name attacked so nearly resem- bles the corporate name of the relator as to be calculated to deceive, and where it is manifest that the secretary of state should have refused to file and record the later prepared certifi- cate of incorporation, thus effecting the incorporation, certiorari will not lie to review his action; as his action is not conclusive and the courts have frequently granted relief to a prior cor- poration aggrieved."^ ]\Iandamus will not lie to compel a sec- retary of state to issue a certificate of incor])oration under a name whose use could subsequently be enjoined by a prior user of a substantially identical name.'^ 07 — Lii'bijr's Extract of Meat Co. 1017; PuMishinj,' Co. v. Dohinsoii, V. Lifbig Extract Co., 172 Fed. Rep. 72 Fed. Rep. 003; Hippins Co. v. l.-,8. Hippins Soap Co., 144 X. Y. 402; 68— Clark v. Aetna Iron \\drks. .*?0 X. E. Rep. 400; 27 L. R. A. 44 111. App. r)10. 42: 43 Am. St. Rep. 700; Holmes. 09 — Ha/.elton Boiler Co. v. Ha- Booth & Hayden v. Holmes. Booth zelton Tripod Boiler Co.. 142 111. & Atwood ilfp. Co., 37 Conn. 278, 404; 30 X. E. Rep. 339. 203; Am. Rep. 324. 70 — The Pock Bros. & Co. v. Peck 71 — People ex rel Columbia Chem. Bros. Co., r»l C. C. A. 2r,l; 113 Fed. Co. v. O'Brien, 01 X. Y. Supp. 040; Rep. 201. 302; citinp Celluloid Mfp. 101 App. Div. 200. Co. V. Cellonite :Mfp. Co.. 32 Fed. 72 — People rx rrl Power v. Rose, Rep. 04: Ropers Co. v. Ropers Mfp. 21'.t 111. 40; 70 X. E. Rep. 42. Co., 17 C. C. A. 570; 70 Fed. Rep. §81] HOPKINS ON TRADEMAltKS. 190 §81. Names of unincorporated associations. -TIk- ^a-mral principles governing tlie inlringenu'nl of corporate names ap- ])ly to the names of unincorporated a.ss()ci;»tions. The general rule is that relief in eiiuity will he refused where no intent to deceive is proven, ;iiul iKt such siniilarity of names of the two organizations exists as is calcidated to mislead the ordi- nary citizen of averagt> intelligence."'' §82. "Secondary meaning" defined. — Of late years the ex- jiression "secoiulary nu-aiiiiig" has Ixmmi frequently employed in opinions in eases of unfair competition. The expression has come to indicate a moaning that may ho "secondary" either in point of intent, or in ]ioint of timo. Thus, in n lending English onso. Tjord Macnaghten said: "The appellants oonoodo — thoy can not. indeed, any longer dispute — that everyhody who makes belting of camel hair, is entitled to de.scrihe his helting as 'Camel-hair Bolting,' pro\nded he does so fairly. "But they coTitond. and T think with reason, that neither Banham nor aiiyhody else is entitled to steal Red- daway's trade under color of imparting accurate and possibly interesting information. Practically the only difTerenco which the unexpected turn in the evidence has made is this: the case now comes under the second branch of the i)roposition laid down by Lord Justice James, if Tamel-hair Belting' had kept its place as a fanciful term, it would have fallen under the first. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained that the expression Tamol-TTair Bolting,' used by Banham, was the 'simple truth.' Their j^roposition was that, 'whore a man is simply tolling the truth as to the way in Mhich his goods are made, or as to the materials of which thoy are composed, ho can JU)t bo hold liable for mistakes which the jiublic may make.' That seems to mo to be ratluM- begging the question. Tan it be said that the description Tamel-IIair Belting.' as iised by Banham. is the simple truth? T will not call it an abuse of language to say so. but certainly it is not altogether a happy expression. The whole merit of that (h'scription — its 7.'J— Porlinm v. Richmnn. l.^fi ns T,. IJ .\. O.^fi; AnKTican Ordor Vi-d. Hop. .140; SiiprffTlP lioHjrr K. of Sc«.tfiHli CtnnH v. Merrill. 1.'>1 of P. V Tmprovcfl Ordor K. of P.. Mrhh. .'>:.«; 21 X. K. K.p. Olfl; R m Mirti. l.-n. 71 V. W. R.-p, 47n; r. R. A, :\2(). 191 NVllAT CONSTITLTLS A \ Al.ll) J KADK.M AKK. I § ^2 one virtue tor l>aiili;iin s imrposos — lies in its (liiplicit y. It means two tilings. At I'.auliam s works, wlicic it can not mean Kecldaway 's l)(•ltin^^ it may Ix- conslrucd to in<'an In-lt- ing made of camel's iiaii'. Abioad. to the (Jcniian iiianulac- tiirer, to the Bond)ay mill owner, to tlie npcount ry native, it must mean Reddaway's l)eltinn ; 76 — Brennan v. F m e r y - B i r d- IIS Fed. Rep. 965, 968. §82] HOI'KINS ON TKAOK.M AUKS. 192 »ir ()\\ lUTsliip. Wln'ii a (h'si'i-i|tti\ c i>r j,'t'(»jri-a|tliiciil woiil or symbol foinos by adoption to havo a siToiulary nu'aiiing de- iiotiii{? origin, its use in this secoiulary souse uuiy be restrained, if it amounts to unfair eomi)etition. In such ease, if the use of it by aM(»thi'r be for the purpose of palminp off the goods of one as and for the poods of another, a court of ofpiity will interfere for the jmrpose of preventinpr siich a fraud. But this kind of relief depends upon tlu* facts of each case, and does not at all conu^ iindcr tlic rules api)licaMc to the infringe- ment of a tradenuirk.*'"' As to the secondary meaning of geographical names, Mr. Justice Brown has said, "geographical names often acquire a secondary significance iiidifativc not only of the ])lace of manufacture or production, but of llio name <»f the manufac- turer or producer and the excellence of the thing mamifactured or produced. Avhich enables the owner to assert an exclusive right to such name as against (n-ery one not doing business within the same geograjihieal limits; and even as against them, if the name be used fraudulently for the purpose of misleading buyers as to the actual origin of the thing produced, or of passing off. the ])roductions of one jjcrson as those of another. "^^ 77 — Vacuum Oil Co. v. Climax R«'- fininp Co.. 'td C. C. A. 00; 120 Fed. I{<'p. 2r>4, 2'>(\. To the same olTt'ct see Standard Varnish Works v. Fish- .r. 1"»3 Fed. Rep. !)28. "It is well wttled that words which are not in themselves a valid trademark nuiy, hy association with tlie {.'oods of a particular manufacturer, ac- <|uire a secondary uii^nification dif- f<-rin;r from tlieir primary meanin;; and di-notin^ the product of that manufactur<-r, and when this is made to appear their use in tiiat wiim- will he priiteeted liy restrain- ing; tin- UH«' of the words l»y others in such a way as to amount to a fraud or deception on the public and to raus<' Injury to thow* to menninj,' has hecome attached, upon the principle, wliich underlies the law pertaining' to trademarks, that the nianufacturcr of the particu- lar piods is entitled to the reputa- tion or ;rt)odwill which they have ac: AH I,. i:d. 247. 2')2; M-hoHC employment of them a special aflirming La Repulique Francaiw* 193 WHAT CONSTirrTKS A VAhlD TKADK.M AKK. §82 The ^'ciicral (locti-iiic lias Ijccn Ktuted witli admirable con- ciseness by Jiul^'c Lwrtoii, as follows: " WIhmi the word is incai)al)lt' oi" beconiijij^ a valid trademark, because descriptive or geographical, yet has by use come to stand for a particular maker or vendor, its use by anotiicr in this secondary esnse will be restrained as unfair and fraudulent competition, and its use in its j)rimary or common sense confined in such a way as will prevent a probable deceit by enabling one maker or vendor to sell his article as the product of another.""" Further illustrative cases are collected in the note.*" V. Saratopa Vicliy Springs Co., 40) C. C. A. 418; 107 Fod. Rep. 459. To the same ofTect see Elgin Na- tional Watch Co. V. Loveland, 132 Fed. Rep. 41, 47; American Walt- ham Watch Co. V. United States Watch Co., 173 Mass. 8."); 53 N. E. Rep. 141. 70 — Computing Scale Co. v. Standard Computing Scale Co., 55 C. C. A. 45!); 118 Fed. Rep. 9G5, 967. Citing Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537, 549 ; 1 1 Sup. Ct. 396 ; 34 L. Ed. 997 ; Chemical Co. v. ]\Ieyer, 139 U. S. 540; 11 Sup. Ct. 625; 35 L. Ed. 247; Mill Co. V. Alcorn, 150 U. S.' 460; 14 Sup. Ct. 151; 37 L. Ed. 1144; Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169; 16 Sup. Ct. 1002; 41 L. Ed. 118; Bennett v. McKinlej-, 13 C. C. A. 25; 65 Fed. Rep. 505. 80 — "Easy Emptying" grass catchers for lawn-mowers. Zittloscn Mfg. Co. V. Boss, 135 C. C. A. 551 ; 219 Fed. Rep. 887; and Lawrence Mfg. Co. V. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537; 11 Sup. Ct. 396; 34 L. Ed. 997; Coats v. Merrick Thread Co., 149 U. S. 562; 13 Sup. Ct. 966; 37 L. Ed. 847; Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co.. 163 U. S. 169; 16 Sup. Ct. 1002: 41 L. Ed. 118; Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Co., 179 U. S. 665; 21 Sup. Ct. 270; 45 L. Ed. 365; French Ropulilic v. Saratoga Vichy Co., 191 U. S. 427; 24 Sup. Ct. 145; 48 L. Ed. 247; Herring, etc.. Safe Co. v. Hall's Safe Co., 208 U. S. 554, 559 ; 28 Sup. Ct. 350; 52 K Ed. 616; Standard Paint Co. V. Trinidad Asphalt Co., 220 U. S. 446; 31 Sup. Ct. 456; 55 L. Ed. 536; Davids Co. v. Davids, 233 V. S. 461, 471; 34 Sup. Ct. 648; 58 L. Ed. 1046; Trinidad Asphalt Co. V. Standard Paint Co., 1<;3 Fed. Rep. 977; 90 C. C. A. 195 (C. C. A. 8th Cir.); Standard Paint Co. v. Rubheroid Roofing Co., 224 Fed. Rep. 69.5"; 140 C. C. A. 235 (C. C. A. 7tii Cir.) ; Samson Cordage Works v. Puritan Cordage Mills, 211 Fed. R.-p. 603; 128 C. C. A. 203; L. R. A. 1915F, 1107 (C. C. A. 0th Cir.); Vacuum Oil Co. v. Climax Refining Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 254, 256; 56 C. C. A. 90 (C. C. A. 6th Cir.) ; Fuller v. Ilnfi-, 104 Fed. Rep. 141; 43 C. C. A. 453; 51 L. R. A. 332 (C. C. A. 2nd Cir.); Scrivcn v. North, 134 Fed. Rep. 366; 67 C. C. A. 348 (C. C. A. 4th Cir.) ; United Lace & Braid Mfg. Co. V. Barthels Mfg. Co., 221 Fed. Rep. 456; International Silver Co. V. Rogers Corp'n. 66 N. J. Eq. 1 19 ; .57 Atl. 1037; 2 Ann. Cas. 407; af- firmed 67 N. J. Eq. 646; 60 Atl. Rep. 187: 110 Am. St. Rep. .506; 3 Ann. Cas. 804; Rubl)er & Celluloid Har- § 83] IIorKINS ON TR.\DEMARKS. 1*)* §83. Words of double meaning. -In connection witli the subject of "secondary" meaning's, we may consider, briefly, the decisions coucerninjj: the appropriation to trade uses of the class of words having double meanings, being in ()iu> sense arbitrary and in another descriptive. A careful .search of the decisions involving wonls of tliis character fails to disclose a clearer statement of the correct rule than is embodied in the following language of Judge Wallace: "Xo jirinciple of the law of trademark is more familiar than that which denies i)rotection to any word or name wliicli is descri]itive of lln' (puilities, ingredients, or characteristics of the article to which it is applied. An ex- elusive right to the use of siu'h a word, as a trademark, when ai^plied to a iiarticular article or class of articles, can not be acquired by the ju-ior ai>in-opriation of it. because all persons who are entitled to jiroduce and vend similar articles are en- i it led to descril)e them, and to employ any appropriate terms for that i>urpose. Whether a word claimed as a trademark is availalile because it is a fanciful or arl)itrary name, or whether it is obnoxious to the objection of being descriptive, must depend upon the circumstances of each ease. The word which would be fanciful or arbitrary when applied to one article may he descriptive when applied to another. If it is so apt. and legitimately significant of some (luality of the article to which it is sought to be apidied. that its exclusive concession to one person would tend to restrict others from properly describing their own similar articles, it can not be the subject of a moiU)i)oly. On the other hand, if it is merely suggestive, or is figurative oidy. it may be a good trademark, notwithstanding it is also indirectly or remotely descriptive."^' In the opinion (pioted from, the word "instantaneous" was held to be aptly descriptive of one of tlu> (jualities of tlu- goods to which it was applied. In a later case it has been held that the words "Queen." or "Queen Quality." as applied to n.-HH Trimmin;' ("c». v. Uul)lK'r-Houn(I ."{.'•; WotluTHi)<)un v. Curri.-. L. H. r> HniHh Co.. HI \. .1. I>|. 410; 88 Ail. H. L. .^08; U.ddnwiiy v. llanlmm H.p. 210; Ann. (hh. lOl'.B. 'Mr,; (IHiMK. A. (". 1!M»; 2.'. Kn^. Kul. afTirm.-rl 81 \. .T. K<|. .'iin; 88 Atl. (uh. in.1. Hip. 210; Ann, ((im MH'.H. .'Ifl.'i; HI— It.nmtt v. MrKinloy. 13 C. ThompHon V. Mont^'om.ry. 41 Ch. n. C A. 2r.; O.-i Fed. Hip. r>0.'>, 506. 19i WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADKMAIIK. §84 slioes, arc not sd dcscrii)! ivc as f(i j)iM'clii(lr flicir exclusive ap- propriation as a "tiadrnanic, " •liid^'-c SevcreiiH apparently us- ing the word "tradename" as synonymous witii " trade- mark. "^- "It has been repeatrdly cuh'd that a word which suppests even the e(>mi)osition. (]nality, or ehai-aetei-isties of an article to Avhieli it is applied may yet he a ii\- ul" ojiiiiion than wouhl be exix'e'ted. It has been said l)y the Court of Appeals of ^laryland that "A publisher has oitlier in the title of his ^vork or in the aj)i)li- cation of his name to the work, or in the particular marks which designate it, a species of property similar to that which a trader has in his trademark."' Mr. Browne in his learned treatise on trademarks says : "Can ])rinted books be protected by tradem-^rks? Yes, as mere mer- chandise; no. as literary productions.'*- This is true, in so far as it as.serts that marks or devices may be used to distinguish the product of the publisher or book dealer."* lie says further: "There seems to be no sufficient reason why the title of a book may not be deemed a valid trademark,"^ and thereby ex- l)resses tlie error contained in the careless dictum of the Mary- land court quoted above. The correct view is stated in clear terms by Mr. Rowland Cox, in his note to Clcmans r. Belford:^ "It is necessarily true that the name of a book is, under all circumstances, a descriptive term which means a particular thinpr. The book is created and given a name, and the name is added to the language as a term of description. If a copy- right is taken, the owner of the copyright enjoys, as long as the privilege continues, the exclusive right to the use of the name: and wlion the privilege expires, the name, always a descriptive ttiin. becomes puhlici juris. If the book is not copyrighted, the literary matter becnmcs })uhli(i juris as soon 1 — lUilMTtHon V. IJcrry, .'><> M|)iTty ri;:ht in tho .''•01; Prin* Sl St<*tinrt, l.'i.'J. title . >iii.- .,f viliiili \h npjilical)!)-. .Ml i;»(; 197 BcxjK Trri.£S as trademarks. [§bu as it is published, iiiitl llic Jiamc of the literary mutter goes to the public as an incident of that which it describes. If there is language in some of the cases which seems to indicate that the name of a book can be protected as a trademark, re- flection will demonstrate that it can not be made good. The names of periodicals and newspapers, as distinguished from books, are i)rotected as in the nature of trademarks; and in many instances the j)ul)lications in connection with which the names have boon used were proper subjects of copyright. In some cases thoy contained, or might have contained, articles in connection with which the statutory privilege had been acquired. But the name which has been protected has never been sinii)ly the name of a book, but always that of a con- stantly changing series. Thus the term 'Old Sleuth Library' was distinctly arbitrary, and never the name of a particular book or literary production, and for this reason it was in an accurate sense a trademark, and must continue to be as long as the publication was continued. But if the publication of the periodical were discontinued for a period of years, the name would cease to be arbitrary and take its place in litera- ture as indicating a definite collection of articles, pictures, etc., and as soon as it acquired that settled meaning, it would, in the absence of copyright, become puhlici juris." It is now^ established law that there is no trademark right in the title of a book. Judge Wallace stated the rule very lucidly ■when he said: "Neither the author or proprietor of a literary w^ork has any property in its name. It is a term of description, which serves to identify the work ; but any other person can with impunity adopt it, and apply it to any other book, or to any trade commodity, provided he does not use it as a false token to induce the public to believe that the thing to which it is applied is the identical thing which it originally desig- nated. If literary property could be protected upon the theory that the name by Avhich it is christened is equivalent to a trademark, there Avould be no necessity for copyright laws."° This doctrine is fully sustained by the later cases."^ 6 — Black V. F.lirich, 44 Fed. Ixop. ^fr. Justice Milh-r on circuit) ; 793. 704. Morriam v. Famous Shoe and 7 — Morriam v. ITolloway Pub. Clothinf? Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 411 Co., 43 Fed. Rop.' 4.")0 (opinion hy (opinion hy Judge Thayer) ; Mnr- §S6) TTOPKiNS ON T^A^^^fARKS. 198 IItp. ns olsowhrrc, tlif linnul lioctriiu's of uiifjiir compotition may W invoked, cvt'ii in tlio «,l>seno4> of copvriirht. In a case wliere the plaintifT piihlislied an nn('opyrinnti and illustrated in distinctive fashion, and the di'fendant copied the work, in ;i dicaper manner, the court said: "The in.iury likely to l»e done phiintifT is twofold. First, it is threatened with a loss of sales and suhsecpient profit: and. seeon«lly. it is thn>atened with a loss of ref)utation as a jiroducer of fine and artistic hooks. • • • Hpon the general right of tlie jdaintifT to ]>rotectivo relief wo can not see any reason Avhy the same rule should not he applied to a book that has heen aj>])lied to a ^ame. or to ei«rars. or to any- tliinp else which is distinprnished ])y a lal)el, or by the dis- tinctive form or style of the package. The decisive fact is that the defendants arc unfairly and fraudulently attemptin^r to trade upon tlie reputation wliich ])laintiff has built up for its books.'"* §86. Trademark in title of periodical. — In 1S59 Vice-Chan- ceilor Stuart enjoined a defendant who had bejrun the jmbli- cation of "The Penny Bell's Life and Sporting News" from j)ublishing any newsj)aper under that luune, or any other luime in which the words "Bell's Life" should occur, the application being made l)y the iiroj>rictors of "Bell's Life in London." In the course of liis opinion the vice-chancellor said: "This is an ai)])lication in sujiport of the right to property."^ Thus was distinctly recognized the right of trademark in the title of a periodical ])u])1icatioji. Long prior to this time, however, equity had suppressed this species of piracy hetweiMi ])ublishers, the first rei)orted case being that of Uoffff r. T\irh>i, where the com- plainant was the proprietor of a magazine called "The Wonder- ful Magazine" and the defendant's publication ])ore sidistan- tially the same name witli the addition of the words "New Series, Im])roved." The injunction was granted by Lord Eldon.'" rlam v. Tcxns Siftinys Piiti. Co., 0— CN'mont v. ^fncldick. 1 C.'ifT. 40 Vi-<\. FN|i. 9J4 (opinion hy fi« ; T. .lur. \. S. r){)2; Xl I.. T. •ludfjp .'^hipmnn t : Kijdiny v. (i. 117; Sr!). 174. P. Putmnn'H Sonn. 120 IVd. Rep. 10— IIo(:;r v. Kirl.y. S Vih. 21.''>; 631; r,7 C. C. A. 20.''). Si'h. 10. I-ord llMou uIho ro- 8 — K. T*. Dntton tc Co. v. C'lipp- Htraim-d n ilcfcn. <»nirt citiH an opinion lioldin;; tliat Pr. X. R. 4'»0; Cox, 307; Seb. 270. a n.-wspapir or jtrico curn-nt can 14_I)ixon Cruril.l.' Co. v. ("JiiK- lu.t bo copyri^'litcd hmuisc th«« ^'.■nli.-im, 2 linwHlrr, 321; Cox, r..'>n. t«rm wicnr.- cim not, with any pro- l.'V— St«>pln-nH V. I).- C(.nto, 7 Rob- I'ri.ty, b.- ai.i>li.(l to a w»)rk of h(. prtunn, 343; 4 Abb. Pr. X. S. 47; nmtiiatin;,' and fii;;itiv.' a form. Cox, 442; Sfb. 29:). The- Itarind Clayton v. Stono, 2 Pain.-. 382.302. 201 It()(»K 'IITI.RS AS TltADKMAHKS. [ § 8G \\()iil(l !)(' ill tilt' words ' Misci al)l(' SiiiinT.' or aiiyf liiii^' of that kind. 'I'lic a(loi)lioii of llic words as tin' title of a novel iiii^ht inako a t radeniai'k. '""■ In 1S!)S the Appellate Division oi" the Siij)reiiie ( 'ourl of New Yoi'k said it eoiild not follow the reasoning,' of counsel "when lie contends that the j)ul)lie, by its short way of referring' to the 'Conwnei'eia! Advertiser,' has ^'iven the plaintiff some kind of an undefined tradeniaik in this poj)ulai* form of s])eech, — a doctrine which would ('(pially apply to a 'sohriijuet' or di- minutive; that its unauthorized use by the defendant, whether likely to in.jui-e the jjlaintiff or not, should be absolutely en- joined as an invasion of a strict jiroperty rij,dit." '" While on the other hand, the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey had held in 1894 that the words "Social Register," applied by a i)ublisher to a directory of a certain locality, containing names of persons resident therein, selected with reference to the personal and social standing of such persons, "become a trademark, and are entitled to j>rotection as such." ^^ From our cursory view of the foregoing decisions and dicta it is jdainly manifest that the right to technical trademark in the title of a periodical has been affirmed and denied with some show of reason upon each side. The subject has been ably discussed by ]\Ir. Browne, who concludes that the name so used is a technical trademark.''' In that conclusion we must coincide, and it is well sustained by the reasoning of Mr. Rowland Cox, which we have before quoted.-" But the fact is patent that it is still a mooted question, and that the solicitor attemjiting to restrain piracy of this kind would better frame his bill ujion unfair competition aiul not upon technical \C — Dicl r t i s e r frin<:ini^ titles of periodicals, see Ass'n V. Haynos. 40 X. Y. Supp. Edmonds v. Benbow, Seton (3d 038-942. Ed.), 90."); In re Edinl)urgh Corro- 18 — Social Register Ass'n v. spondont Newspaper, Ct. of Seas. Howard, 00 Fed. Rep. 270, 271. Cas. 1st. ser. T (new ed.), 407 n; Tlie same ruling was made in So- Cox, ^lannal. Xo. .34. cial Register Ass'n v. Murphy, 128 20 — Xote to Clemens v. Relford, Fed. Rep. 110. 14 Fed. Rep. 728; Cox, Manual. 10 — Browne, Trademarks (2d 084; ante, §8.). § 87] HOI'KINS «».\ TK.VDKMAHXS. 202 tra7 ; Tnpram v. v. Leslie (2). 20 F.-d. Rop. 91; Stiff, r> .lur. X. S. 947; Leo v. Ila- Kstos v. Leslie (1), 27 Fed. Rep. l.y, .'■. Ch. App. Cas. I.m; riem.nt 22; Estes v. \V..rtliin';ton, .31 Fed. V. Maddiek, '. .Tiir. X. S. 592. And IN-p. ir)4. to the name effeet see .^nowdcii v. 22— flannett v. Rupert. 02 C. C. Xoah. Hopkins, Ch. 347; Bell v. A. .')94 ; 127 F.. IMJ Fed. Rep. 204; ii Boynton Co. v. Riehanlson i anirmed \4(\ F.'d. Rep. 1023; 70 Mor;.'Bn Co., 8 X. Y. Supp. .'.3; C. C. A. 078. FarriHrs' T^>aii A Trust Co. v. 2o:} HOOK TIl-UCS AS TKADKMARKS. [§ 87 pnuluction itself. Pra.-tiriilly, i.i Ml of the cases invclvrnt' play titles with \\l.i<'li the courts of this country have had to do. there was some scheme of production involved which represented the hiisiness enterprise of tlie manager, as well as the i)resentation of the ideas of the author. The ideas of the author ajraiii are not entirely embodied in lanf^ua^e which reaches the audience in word sung or sjM)li'j;ani/at ioii. Jiul;rt' McAilaui has said; "'llu' (lui'stioii, "What's in a iiaiiu'" has hi'cii answered by the eourts in many well-eonsitlercd eases, wherein the exelu- sive rijfht to a name possessed or owned by a sueeessl'ul businesa enterprise has been maintained a^yainst imitators and wrong- doers who Roupht. by an unauthorized use, to deeeive the public and jirofit by the wronjj. Wliile courts have in some instanees refused injunctive relief to i)roteet the use of the title where plays were dissimilar, and the appropriation a mere coincidenee {FroliDwn v. Miller, 8 Mise. Rep. 370. 21) N. Y. Siipp. 1109), they have uniformly enjoined such use where deception of the publie and injury to the j)]aintiff were likely to follow a refusal to grant ecjuitable aid (Shook v. ^Voo(l. '\2 Lei:. Int. 2l)4; nier V. Abrahams, 82 N. Y. 510)." 2' i„ .^ ].,|,.,. ,..,^^. ^1,^. Supreme Court of Illinois afTirmed a decree of injunction in a case where the ])lainti}T was the j)roducer of the jjjay "Sher- lock Holmes'* and the defendant subse(piciitl.\' produced a j)lay entitled "Sherlock Holmes, Detective. " In affirming the decree of injunction, the sujirenie court based the jilain- tiff's right to equitable n^iicf upon the ground tliat the names of the res])ective jilays were so siiuihir that the public "would be deceived to believe that the drama of the appellant company was that which the appellee had been ])roducing. " The court exjiressly declined to decide whether or iu)t the plaint IfT had a trademark right or jjrojicrty in the words "Sherh)ck Holmes," basing the relief upon the general rule as to unfair competition, Judge Roggs remarking that "Ecpiity jirovides a remedy to prevent such unfair and fraudulent competition among busi- ness rivals in any and all lines of legitimate trade and business. " -'' \Vlicr(! the |)lay is a dramatization of a book, whose copy- right has expired, its tith' is not an infringement of the title of another (eo|»\rightc(l i play l)as('(l upon the book.-'"' § 88. Infringement of book titles and play titles by motion picture titles. The niatnifarturcrs of motion |)ictur(' lilnis have •Jt— Frdhrnnii v. r;i\ t«.n, (JS X. V. K.p. .1!)1 ; alliriniii;,' s. c. UlM 111. ::iip|.. 840. .\pp. 01.1. 2.'> — II(>|)kiiis .XmiiHi-mcnt Co. v. 2fl — r.lnwr v. St. I'lmo Co., ITS rroliman, 202 111. MI; (57 N. E. F.'d. Kop. 270. 205 H()(-('-('xist iii^' copyfi^'litcd hooks ami plays as the titles of their films. in the uhseiiec of eopyrij^'ht questions, tho similarity (»f title alone can jrive no cause of aetion. The "Nick Carter" case was based ui)on the name "Xiek Carter" rej^istered "for a weekly periodical devoted to fiction." The defendant made a film entitled "Nick Carter the Great American Detective Solving the $100,000 Jewel Mystery," the plot of the film play not being an infringement of any of the hundreds of "Nick Carter" stories published by the plaintiff. A ])reliminary injunction was appealed from, the appeal resulting in a dismissal of the bill. 2' The underlying doctrine is that "if literary property could be protected upon the theory that the name by which it is christened is equivalent to a trademark, there would be no necessity for copyright law.''2M In an English case the suit was brought by the authors and owners of the copyright of a play, "Sealed Orders," to restrain the defendants from using and advertising a film play under that title. The case coming on before ]\Ir. Justice Eve, the court was so clearly against the plaintiffs that the case was settled by a consent decree under which the defendants agreed to change the title of the film to "Orders Under Seal." The learned judge asked two questions during the hearing which are clearly suggestive that British law is in harmony with our decisions. "Could not anyone paint a picture and call it 'Sealed Orders?' A person might Avrite a book now and call it 'Sealed Orders,' and is not what the defendants want to show merely a pictorial book?"2!> 27— Atlas ^Uis. Co. v. Stroot & 28— Black v. Elnicli, 44 Fed. Rop. Smith, 122 C. C. A. r)fl8; 204 Fod. 704. Tvt'p. ."108; appeal in supreme court 20 — Ralcijjh v. Kinematofrraph dismissed in Street & Smitli v. At- Trading Co., 31 R. P. C. 143, 145. las Mfj:. Co., 231 U. S. 348; 58 L. Ed. 262. CTTAPTEK V. THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT TO A TRADEMARK S USE. §89. Laches.— Thore is no hifhcs wliori' a c'oini)lainant is only waitiiif; to get a sufficient (luantity of evidence to secure a successful i)rosecution of the infriiifjcr,' and of course none exists where the comi)lainant has no knowledge of the fact of infrintronient ;- and it has been distinctly held by the federal supreme court that an iiijuiut ion will not fjenerally be refused on the pround of delay alone.' Followinjj: that decision, it was said by Jjidjre Nixon, in llic I'nited States Circuit Court in the District of New Jersey: "There has been larpe discus- sion of the (juestion how far laches, in stojiiunf,' the infringe- ment of a trademark, will deprive a comi)lainant of the benefits of a jireliminary injunction. But that discu.ssion has been ])ut to rest, so far as this court is concerned, by the recent decisioji of the suju-eme co\irt in the case of McLean r. Flcinhu/,* where it was licld that ac(iuieseenee of lonp: standing was no l)ar to an injunction, although it i)reclnded the party actpiies- cing from any right to an account for jiast i)rotits. " ' The rule that laches which will be a i)ar to an accounting will not be a defense as against a i)rayer for injunctive relief, obtains in all cases of unfair comi)etition, whether or not a technical tradcmaik is involved." l_C'avo V. Myers, Seton (4tli -1 — Supra. VA.), 2:J8: I.<-.' \. Ilal.v. 22 1.. T. ') — Consolidiitcd I'riiit .lur Co. v. X. S. 2.')1. TliomnH. Cox, CA\r>. And to tlio 2_/n rv FHriiia. 27 W. U. 4.")0; Himic cfTcct we La Ri'puliIiqiK' S<'b. r.42; Wcldoii V. Diik, L. II. rruiicais.' v. SHiultz. 42 ('. C. 10 Ch. I). 247; .10 L. T. N. S. 4t;7 : A. 2:1.5; Ut2 F.-d. U»|). l.">:i; Snn- Sm-I.. 6.38; Taylor r. CarpenttT (1), d.TH v. .laroh. 20 Mo. .\i>p. 00; N. 3 Story, 4.'i«; Cox, 14; Sch. 7S; K. Fairliank Co. v. l.iKk.l. Kini,' Tavlor V. Carpenter (2). 2 Wood. & Cake .Soap Co. {4i. 11'. I""l l'<" A M. 1; Cox. .'{?.; L. T. r,14; •Mi2; rA C. C. .\. 204. C.ilka V. Mihaloviteli. .'.0 Fed. IJep. 0— WorelieHtrr Hrewiii.' t"t|.. s. 427. Keiiter fc Co.. S» C. C. A. (JOo; :j_MeLean v. FI<-miiiK. 00 V. .S. Lw Fed. Kep. 217, 2l!t 24.-.; 24 L. F.d. K2S. 209 207 LOSS OK KKillT TO TK AI)i:.M AKK "s ISK. [§89 The nilo luis always been, however, that ladies on the part of the owner of a trademark woiiUl be a bar to liis ai)i)lieation for a j)reliiniiiary iiijuiief ion. .Iiidfre Wallace stated the rule as follows: "Ladies in pi'osecnt in^r infringers has always been reeo^nii/ed as a suflieient I'eason for denying a i)reliminary injunction; sometimes, ai)i)arcntly, by way of disci])line to a comj)lainan1 who lias manifested reluctance to burden liimself with the expense and vexation of a lawsuit, and delayed legal proceedings until his i)atieiiee was exhausted. When delay of the owner of a jjatent or trademark to prosecute infringers has been of a tendency to mislead the jjublic or the defendant sought to be enjoined into a false security, and a sudden injunction would result injuriously, it ought not to be granted summarily, but the comj)lainant slioidd be left to his n^liof at final hearing.'' " In cases of unfair competition, where no technical trademark is involved, a prelimiiuiry injunction has been denied where the defendant's goods had been sold o])enly for many years in the package complained of.'' But in a later case the court of appeals of the seventh circuit has l)r()a(lly applied the doctrine of McLean i\ Fleming to a case of unfair competition;" to whicli liolding the con- trary has been held.*" Knowledge by a jilaintiff of a few instances of defendant's unfair competition will not be a bar to injunction.^' Laches which prevents recovery in one case, will not be a bar to another action of the same complainant against a subsequent infringer. Tlius, in the "Hunyadi" cases, the complainant, the vend(jr of a Hungarian mineral water, was denied relief as to the use of the word "Hunyadi" against the vendor of water from another spring in Hungary, upon the ground of 7_Estos V. Worthington, 22 it— Dr. Ti-trr H. Falirnoy & Sons Fc-d. Rep. 822. To the same efTect, Co. v. Iluiniiier, 82 C. C. A. 621 -, see C. 0. Burns Co. v. W. F. Burns l.')."? Fed. Rep. 73'), 737. Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 944; Havana 10— E. & .1. Burke, Ltd. v. Bisli- Commercial Co. v. Nichols, 1')") Fed. op, 7;') C. C. A. C(!(i; 144 Fed. Rep. Rep. 302. 8:!S. 8 — Von Mumm v. Steinmetz, 137 11 — Ford Motor Co. v. Wilson, Fed. Rep. 108; Virginia Hot 223 Fed. Rep. 808. Sprin;,'9 Co. v. Hepeman & Co., 13S Fed. Rep. S.'..'), 802. §90] IIOIKINS ON TRADKMARKS. 208 laclios, fourloon ilifToronl Ilunpariaii iiiincral watt-rs liavinj; been niarkrtiMl in tlu' I'liitt'd States uiulcr the name "Ilun- yntli." aiul tlie i'»)ni|)laiiuint being estt)i)i)eil as to dealers in sueh Ilunfjarian bitter waters by laehos.'^ Subsccpiently an Ameriean dealer entered the market with an artificial water to which he applied the mark "llunyadi." In aflirming a decree granting the injunction, »Iudge (jrosseup said "appellant oflfers a manufactured water of whose contents the public has no knowledge, and at a cost ruinous to the importation of the genuine water. The supreme court never meant, in our judg- ment, to throw around such a competitor the i)rotection of the estojipel indicated, or exj^osc the jiublic to a device under which they would drink the waters of Lake Michigan, doctored after api)ellant's recipe, in the ])clief that they were drinking the natural waters of Iluiijrary. *' '•' §90. Laches and acquiescence distinguished. — "Laches" and "ac(puesceiice" ai-e terms fi-iMiucnt ly used synonymously, or at least without due regard to tlieir respective incaiiings. "Laches" imports a merely passive, while "acquiescence" implies an active assent.'^ The Supreme Court of California has said, " 'Laches' would strictly seem to imply neglect to do that which ought to have been done; 'acquiescence' a rest- ing satisfied with or submission to an cxistijig state of things." '•'• "Acquiescence — that is. assent — is tantamount to an agree- ment." "• The Supreme Court of the United States, by Mr. Justice Swayne, has said : "Acquiescence and waiver are always questions of fact. There can be neither without knowledge. The terms imi)ort this foundation for such action. One can not waive or actpiiesce in a wrong while ignorant that it has been committed. Current sus|)icioii and niiiior are not enough. 12 — Saxlihinr v. NirlHon, 17fl V. i:i— Tiinckcray v. Snxli-limr, 00 S. 4.3; 4.". L. IM. 77; n-v«THin;,' C C .\. r)fi2; 12.") Fed. R.«p. Oil, SaxMin.r v. Nrilson, .34 C. C. A. !•!:?. OnO; J>1 Fi-d. ]{i]). 1004; tlic latter 1 1 — W 1 <'ii I.imKiitinns. hoc. rvviTHinn SaxliliiKT v. NrilHon, (52. 88 K.d. l{.-i>. 71; Samo v. KiBn«r l.'i — T.tix v. I In;.';.' in, CO ("al. 2.").')- & M.nd.lH..n ("o., 179 U. .S. 10; 2(i0. 4.'> L. Kd. 00. 10 — Mattlu'WH v. Murrliirton, 17 Fod. H«-p. 7(10-700. 209 i-oss OK KUiiiT TO tkadkmakk's L'SK. [§91 There must, he know h'd're ol" I'aets whicli will oiiahle the party to take etVeetiial action." '' §91, Acquiescence. "'I'he consont of a niaimfaetnrer to the u.se or iniilalion ol" liis tra(hMiiark l)y another may, perliaps, be justly inferred from his knowled^^'c and silcnee; hut .such a consent, wliether expressed or implied, when purely ^ratui- tou.s, may certainly be withdrawn; and when imi)lied, it lasts no h)nger than tiie silence from whieli it springs. It is, in reality, no more than a revocable license. The existence of the fact may he a jiroper subject of iiupiiry in taking an account of profits if such an account shall hereafter be decreed ; but even the admission of the fact would furnish no reason for refusing an injunction."''* This dictum of Judge Duer in Amoskcag Mfg. ('o. v. Siicar is so comprehensive as to warrant its extended (piotation above given. While it was held by Vice-chancellor Wood that a plaintiff's acquiescence in the defendant's use of his mark for two years after the ])laintiff had seen it publicly exhibited would disentitle him to relief,'" an injunction was granted in a case where a dissenting opinion shows that the essential feature of the mark had been used by others than i)laintiff with his knowledge for more than twenty years.^" It has been held in a federal circuit court that acquiescence for a time equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations must be shown.^' Acquiescence can not be inferred and it is revocable if it could be.-- 17_IV„Po V. Lan-rdon. Oil U. S. 20 — Gillott v. Estcrbrook, 47 r)78-r)81; 25 L. Ed. 420. See also to Barl). 45;-); Cox, .340. Dissent of the same efTect, Allen v. ]McKeen, I Infjraliam, J. Siimn. 27(5-314; Evans v. Small- 21— Taylor v. Carpenter (2), 2 eomhe. L. \X., 3 TI. L. 249 ; Pvamsden Wood. & M. 1 ; Cox. .32. But V. Dyson, L. R., 1 H. L. 129; Reed "laelies for even less tlian the V. West, 47 Tex. 240. statutory period of limitations. 18 — Amoskeaj,' Mfj,'. Co. v. Spear, aided by other eircumstane.s, will 2 Sandf. S. C. .')9n; Cox, 87. The l)ar a ri will not deprive the owner of a trademark of an injunction a-rainst an infringer, hut a reasonable dili^'cnce is recpiired (»f a complain- ant in assert ill}; his riphts. if he would hold a wrongdoer to an account for iirofits and damages. This ride, however, applies only to those cases where there has been an accpiiescence after a knowledge of the infringement is brought home to the com- plainant." -^ §92. Caution notices to infringers as evidence of acquies- cence.- In a case of unfair competition, iiivdlviii;: tlic iiiiiiil)er ":iO:r' apidied to pens, a caution notice had been ai»i)lied by the plaintilT for many years, warinnp the pid)lic a<:ainst imita- tions of his pens. The court said, "we see, by his notice or 'caution,' that he knew that others, also, had used the same combination of numbers, for the jnirpose of defrauding him; but it does not appear that he had discovered any individual Avhom he could attack as an offender. Nor can I believe that a 'caution' to the public apainst the fraudulent use of his device can be deemed an acquiescence in the use by others of the peculiar arrangement of numbers njion steel pens and packing boxes which the plaintiff had first adoi)ted and used and which had come to be a designation of a particidar and ])opular pen with the public."-' § 93. Abandonment. — The consideration of laches and ac- quiescence leads us naturally to the subject of abandonment. The first form of abandonment is by disuse of the mark. "That the right to use a trademark may be lost by abandonment or di.suse is too clear to need argument or the support of authority. "^'^ But the length of time during which the mark ( liriHty V. Murj.liv, 12 II. .w. Tr -j:)— Hu^'Im-h, J., in niackwt-U v. 77; ("ox, 104; S.-h. 137; Momn- Dil.r.'ll, I; Sob. .lOO; 23— Nixon. J., in Shwv. r v. K<1- to tlic Hamc ••(Tcct. Lav.rin- v. ncM)iHT, lo;r;,'. n F«-d. Il«-p. (W»l. Ind. L. R. H Mad. 14!>; Hoyal Uak- 24— Leonard, .1., in (lillott v. mn r.>\vl«Tl»rook. 47 Uarl). 4ri.'»; (ox. H<|). 'ITrt. AmiT. Trademark Cawii, 340, 3(n. 211 i/)ss or Ric.iiT TO trademark's use. [§93 is not used is iimnalcrial cxcci)! wlicn it is sndi as, taken in connei'tion with all the circumstances, will show the intention of its owner to abandon it.-'' *'A man who has a traileniark may properly iiuve re^'ard to Hie state of the market and the demand for the goods; it would be absurd to sujjpose Ih; lost his trademark by not i)utting more goods on the market when it was glutted." -' Registration "svas refused in England where the applicant's niaik "Emollio" had not been used by him for eleven years, and his application was opposed by one who had, in the meantime, registered the word "Emolline" as a trademark for articles similar to those npon which the applicant intended to affix his mark (perfumery). 2« Before the courts will declare an abandotnnent by disuse there must be satisfac- tory proof of intention of abandonment. It has been suggested by Chitty, J., that such intention will be gathered from the OAvner's acts in breaking up the moulds by which the mark is made, and taking the trademarked article from his price lists.^" Tt must be borne in mind, in this connection, that the defense of abandonment is not favored by the courts. One judge has said, "there is something very abhorrent in allowing such a defense to a wrong." •"^^' Although as a matter of course a trademark once abandoned may be adopted by another for the same class of merchandise."^^ there must be clear proof of the fact of abandonment,''^ and it ought to be clearly shoAvn that such other i^erson is adopting the same mark fairly and honestly, and not in an attempt to filch from its original owner the reputation he has obtained for it.-^"' What act or acts will constitute an abandonment must be determined by the facts in each particular case. One English decision held that a 2G— Burt V. Tucker. 178 Mass. .'iO— Woodbury, J., in Taylor v. 493; 59 X. E. Rep. 1111. 52 L. R. farpentcr (2 1, 2 Wood. & M. 1; A. 112; GilU-tt V. Lumsden, 4 Ont. Cox, 32. Law Rop. 3nn. 31— MfnciuU-z v. Holt. 12S U. S. 27_nutty. .T.. in Monson v. .".14; .32 L. Ed. 'ylCt: Royal Baking Boolini. L. R.. 2(5 Cli. 1). 3'.)S-400; Rowdrr Co. v. Raymond, 70 Ft-d. Cartm.ll, 233. Rt'p. 370-382. o8_./„ ,.p Grossmitli. f. R. V. ('. 32— Sohl v. Oeisendorf, 1 Wilson ISO; (iO L. T. X. S. r.12: Cartm.'ll. (Ind.), 00; Rd). .307. l.n. 33— Royal Baking Powder Co. v. 20— M,.n!ar- tieidar i)remises where selling; or manufaetiiring is eondueted has led to some apparent eonflicts of opinion amonj; the eourts. Careful aiuilysis of the faets ^vill show that there is some semblance of harmony in the rulinfrs. Whether a removal from the premises will ccuistitiite an abandonment of the use of the name depeiuls on Avhether th«' name indieates the buildinp itself, or merely the business conducted therein. Thus, "Booth's Theatre" desipnated the theatre and nut the actor, and upon its sale by Edwin Booth he could not restrain his vendee from the use of the name, as ^Messrs. Jarrett & Palmer had fully advertised the fact that they were lessees and nuinaprers. and no question of fraud could be raised."'' As stated by Wallace. J., in Atlantic MUUng Co. v. Eohuison: "The ritrht to the exclu- sive use of a word or symbol as a trademark is inseparable from the ri^rlit to nudroduction or article of the proprietor. It may be aban(b)ned if the business of the proprietor is abaiuloned. It may become identified with the place or establishment where the article is manufactured or sold, to which it has been applied, so as to desi^rnate and characterize the article as the production of that place or establishment, rather than the ]iroiu-ietor. A trademark of this description is of uo value to the original i)r()prict(tr because he could not use it without deceiition. ami therefore would not he protected in its exclusive enjoyment. Such a trademark ■would seem to he an incident to the business of the place or establishment to which it owes its oritrin. and without which it can have no independent existence. It should be deemed to pass with a transfer of the business because such an implica- tion is consistent with the character of the transaction ami the presumable intention of the parties. " •""'■ .34 — Hrowri'- v. Frccnian, 12 W. R. .30r.; 4 N. R. 470. 3:, — Rooth V. Fiirn-lt, .">2 TIow. Pr. IfiO. .1ft— Atlantic Milling Co. v. Roh- inFon, 20 r<;\. K-p. 218; ritiny Di.von Cnirililt' Co. v. (JuRftcn- heim. :\ Am. L. T. 228; Iliidmin v. OHlx.rn.', :J!) L. •!. Cli. N. S. 7ft; Shipwri^'lit V. CI.nKi.ts. 10 \V. R. fiftft. Sri' nlrto to tlio pnmp efToct Ilnll V. RarrowB, 4 DoC.. J. 4 S. 2\:\ IX)SS OK KKillT TO TRADKMAHK S USE. [§93 So lliiil llic use of llic name "Stilliiiaii " to iiidiciite llie clotli product of the Slilhnan Mills;''' "Old Oscar I'cppcr" to indi- cate the i)roduct of the distillery of that name ;'^ "(Jshorne House" to designate a hotel first owned by Osborne;'''^ "Tower Palace," designating a building, having a tower, where a clothing business was conducted,*" are all held to be indicative of tlie premises and abandoned i)y the owner of the name who sells the premises or removes therefrom. It follows that a mere arbitrary name not designating the locality or building in which a business is transacted will survive a change in the location of the business.-*^ The length of time during which a trademark is not used is, as we have seen, merely a circumstance to be considered with all the other facts in the case in determining whether there was an intention to abandon its use. Thus, defendants have been restrained from using a mark that has lain in disuse for periods of one year,^^ three years,^^ four years,^' nine years,-*-"^ ten years,-*" and even twenty years.^" The vital ques- tion is the intention of the owner of the mark, and the burden of establishing abandonment lies upon the party who affirms it.^8 150; Glen & Hall Mf{,'. Co. v. Hall, 61 N. Y. 227-2:54; Kidd v. Johnson, 100 U. S. (517; 2.-) L. Ed. 760; Leather Cloth Co. v. American Leather Cloth Co.. 11 Jur. N. S. r)13; Ainsworth v. Walmesley, 44 L. J. 555. 37 — Carmichael v. Latimer, 11 R. I. 395. 38 — Pepper v. Lahrot, 8 Fed. Rep. 29. 39 — Hudson v. Osborne, 39 L. J. Ch. X. S. 79. 40 — Armstrong,' v. Kleinhaus, 82 Ky. 303. 41— Dewitt V. Mathey (Ky.), 35 S. W. Rep. 1113 (not officially re- ported ) . 42 — Lemoine v. Ganton, 2 E. D. Smith, 343; Co.x, 142. 4.3 — Julian v. Hoosier Drill Co., 78 Ind. 408. 44 — Burt V. Tucker, 178 Mass. 493; .59 N. E. Rep. 1111, 52 L. R. A. 112. 4.'>— Lazenhy v. White, 41 L. J. X. S. 354; Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. (3), 179 U. S. 19; 45 L. Ed. 60. An injunction was refused because plaintiff delayed ac- tion for nine years in Amoskea{» Co. V. Garner, 55 Barl). 151. 40— Wolfe V. Barnett, 24 La. Ann. 97. 47— Gillott V. Esterbrook, 48 X. Y. 374. 48 — Julian v. Hoosier Drill Co., 78 Ind. 408. This is analogous to the rule that where one sued for infrinpinji a trademark sets up a prior ri>,'lit to the mark in ques- tion, it is incumbent upon him to establisli his prior use by satisfac- tory evidence. Tetlow v. Tappan, 85 Fed. Rep. 774. § 93] llorKlNS ON TK.VDKMAUKS. 214 Tlicrc may Ik* an iiivoluiilary ahniHlnniiu'iit of a t ratli'iuark through tlu' fact that, oiu'c distinctivi', it lias ceased to indicate the mercliaiulise of the owner of the mark ami has become puhlUi juris because it indicates only a peculiar product or method of manufa«Murc. This a{;ain arises fi-om the peculiar circumstances of each case. "What is the test by wliich a decision is to be airived at. whether a word which was .... . * originally a trailenuirk has become puhhci juris.' I ihiid\ the test must be whether the use of it by otlwr persons is still eah'ulatcd to (bn-eive the i)ublic; wiiether it nuiy still luive the eflfect of intlucin^' the public 1o buy jrisc(l as trndc- Ch. 354; lA-a v. Millar. Sdi. .'>1.*}; mark comes into i><>|Milar use in n S«'ton (4tli K<1. 1 . 242; Lea v. Dca- (IcHcriptivo sense does not invati- kin. Fed. Caw No. Hl."i4; 11 date its use as a trademark. Sel- BiB8. 23; /ii rr ArI.en/., L. R., 3.") cliow v. Raker. 03 N. Y. .'".0; (Vllu- f'h. I>. 24S: Neva Stearine Co. v. loid Mf^'. Cn. v. ("elhmite Mf;j. Co.. Mowlin;/. Vict. L. R. 08; Slu-r- 32 Fed. lJe|... 01; Lawrence Mf-i. w.''H Extraet Co. v. Ilan- v. Stratton. 12 Fed. Rep. fiOfi. I.ury. 17 L. T. N. S. 208; WatkinH r.l— Manluittan Medicine Co. v. V. Landon, r,2 Minn. 380-.393; .'.4 \. Wood, lOS V. S. 218; 27 L. Ed. W. Rej). 193; 19 L. R. A. 23«; Mar 7'i(5; I^a v. Millar, Seton (4th Ed.), 242; S.I,. r,l3. 215 I/)SS OK KKillT TO TRAKK.M SKK's USE. [§93 Tlio OMiicr III" a f riidciuark may by a practice of sliipping goods bearing the mark to the same consignee, so that it may be held out to or believed by purchasers to indicate some right to the marl< in the consignee, lose the exclusive right to its use.''- The fact that u numulacturer uses his name uv an additional symbol, such as a coat-of-arms, in connection with the dis- tinctive word, does not deprive him of his trademark right in the distinctive word. Thus the manufacturer of "Eureka" shirts, wiiich he marked "R. Ford's Eureka Shirt, London," was awarded an injunction restraining a defendant from the sale of an article nuirked "The Eureka Shirt." •"••' The manu- facturers of "Excelsior White Soft Soap" sought to enjoin the makers of "Bustard & C'o.'s Excelsior White Soft Soap." and upon the motion it was held that their right to injunctive relief was not affected by the fact that the defendants had never used the word except in conjunction with their firm namc.-'''^ A manufacturer who uses his trademark in connection with words indicating that his goods are the product of another maker will lose his right to have the word used as trademark protected. This Avas held in a case where "Eton" cigarettes were so jiut uj) as to suggest that they were of foreign manu- facture.'^"'' But a manufacturer who uses his trademark on goods prepared for the jobbing trade, adding to or using there- with the luime of the jobber, does not lose his right to the protection of the trademark, for, as said by Judge Colt: "In ry2 — Rohinson v. Fiiilay, and nioiid v. Bnuik.r, R. P. ('. 301: Ward V. Uol.inson, 1.. R., Ch. D. Cartmcll, 142. 4S7. .'>4 — Braham v. Bustard, 1 H. 4 r,:?_Ford V. Fostor, L. R. 7 C'li. M. 447: !) L. T. N. S. 100; 11 W. D. 010; L. R. 7 Ch. D. Oil; 41 L. R. 1001; 2 X. R. ",72; Scb. 220. .f. Ch. 08^2; 27 L. T. X. S. 210; 20 Tho same di-fenso was attempted W. R. 81S; Sc'b. 384. Tho more whore "Cottolcne" was the trade- addition of a coat-of-arma to a mark and "Cottolco," with the de- trademark (as rejristored in En^'- fendanfa name, the alleged in- land) is not sufficient to disen- frinj^cment. Defendant was en- title the person usinj; tlie mark to joined. X. K. Fairl.ank Co. v. sue for an injunction. :Melachrino Central Lard Co.. (>4 Fed. Rep. 133. V. Melachrino Cigarette Co., 4 R. 5")— Wood v. Lambert, L. R. 32 P. C. 215; Cartmcll, 223; Ilam- Ch. D. 247. § 93] IIOPKIN'J^ ON TRArEMARKS. 216 doing this 110 ri'al tloieit was inattircd iijioii the public, because tlie purchaser obtalucd the same ^'oods which lie would have purchased if the name of the jobber had not been upon them. "^" In one case it was argued by the defendants that when the plaintiffs furnished their "Excelsior" stoves to the trade and marked the dealers' names upon the stoves, they thereby iiermitted the dealer to hold himself out to the public as the manufacturer of the stoves. This was not a successful defense, but the coiirt stood upon the fact that there was "nothing in connection with the luimes of these dealers to indicate that they are the manufacturers, and there is no evi- dence that any one ever siipposcd they wovo the manufac- turers." ''~ Advertisements ])ublished in the United States by a cor- jioration having the exclusive sale of certain Hungarian mineral waters, to the effect that the name under which the waters were sold had become a general name for all similar waters, and that the cori)()ration would thenceforth distinguish the par- ticular water sold by it by a s])ecial trademark, were held not to evidence an aliaudoiiment of th(> (iriginal mark which was binding on the ownei- of the wells; I\Ir. Justice Brown an- nouncing the following rule: "To establish the defense of abandonment it is necessary to show not only acts indicating a practical abandonment, but an actual intent to abandon. Acts which unexplained woidd be sufficient to establish an abandonment may be answered by showing that there never was an intention to give up and reliinpiish the right claimed." '* .'>6— Pike Mf^. Co. V. CK-veland v. l'<)\v»-ll. L. II. (lS!t7). .App. CftR. Stone Co.. .3"» Fed. Rep. 890-898. 710, 71(5; Liclit. ;J.")0. of luH trade in an artiele of his ru — Sheppard v. Stiiart. 1.1 Pliila. manufacture liy placinfr upon it 117; Price & Steuart. 19:5. the nainoH of hiH cuHtomers who .'iS — Saxlehner v. Kisner & .Men-, are en^'a^ed in selling' it. nor l.y delHon Co., 179 U. S. 19-31 ; 4.') L. Ed. the fact that the conHtimerH know 0(1; citinjr Sinp-r Mf;:. Co. v. .T\ine only the name and excellence of Mf^'. Co., 103 V. S. Ui9, 18(1; Jl L. the article, and neither kn«»w nor Kd. 118, 12.">; 10 Sup. Ct. Rip. 1002; rare who makeH it," Sanborn, .1., Moore v. StevenHon, 27 Conn. 14; in Shaver v. Heller &. Merz Co., I.ivermore v. White, 74 Mi-. 4.")2; 43 108 Fed. Rep. K21 824; 48 C. C. A. Am. Rep. 000; .ludHon v. Malloy. 40 48; alTirminL' Ilelhr 4 Merz Co. Cal. 299; Hiiknimi v Link. 110 V. Shaver. 102 Fed. Rep. 882. To .Mo. 123; 22 S. \V. \Ui>. 472. the aame effect, City Brewery Co. 217 I/>S.S OF KKillT TO trademark's USE. [§9'^ In the same caso, tlio (liscoiiliiiuance (»f two suits for infringe- ment, l)i'()u^'lit by the selling corporation, after preliminary injunctions had been obtained, are lield hy the supreme court not to be bindinfr upon the eoniplainant in the absence of proof that the discoulinuance was made with the complainant's knowledfre and ac'(|ui('seenee/'" Tlir EuiiVish RuU . That mere cessation of use does not es- tablish abandonment of the trademark has been thus stated, "to constitute a])ando)inient an intention to abandon must be shown. Merc non-user of a trademark can no more be said to constitute abandonment than tlic mere non-user of a ripht to foul a stream beloufrinp: to a mill as an easement can be said to constitute an abandonment of the easement."'"'" There may be a constructive abandonment of specific fea- tures of a trademark, arisinjr from a failure to enumerate such features in securing registration. Tf the registration shows a claim to a trademark "more limited in its description than the owner's common-law rights would otherwise be, the owner is bound by such limitation as showing what he really claimed. " ''1 Thus, in an application for registration of a trade- mark, the failure to claim the letter "s" as a part or fea- ture thereof was held to be an abandonment of that feature of the mark.''2 A person who acquires a patent covering a manufactured article known by a trademark, may, during the life of the pat- ent, enjoin an infringer even though he has ceased manufac- turing the patented article.'''* A trademark, once abandoned, may be adopted by another.*"'^ .r,n— Saxlohnor v. Eisnor & Mf-n- Bcesliorc, 8 C. C. A. 215; 59 Fed. delson Co., 170 U. S. in, 34; 45 L. Rop. 572; Ricbter v. Reynolds, 8 Ed. GO. t'. C. A. 220; 59 Fed. Rep. 577. GO—Cliitty, .!.. in :\rouson & Co. 62— rittsl)urf;h Crushed Steel Co. V. Boehm. L. R. 26 Ch. D. 398. v. Diamond Steel Co., 85 Fed. Rep. As to evidence of abandonment see 637. Louise & Co. Ltd. v. Gainsboroujxb, 63 — Tanney v. Tan-Coast Ven- 20 R. P. C. 61; BloKS V. Ander- tilator Mff,'. Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 121. son, X. S. W. 21 L. R. Eq. 238; 64— Deitach v. Geo. G. Gibson Co., In re Wrifiht, Crossley & Co.'a 155 Fed. Rep. 383; W. A. Gaines Application, 17 R. P. C.'386. & Co. v. Kahn. 155 Fed. Rep. 639. 61_na\vley. J., in Hennessy v. 645; Cohen v. Xajjle, 190 Mass. 4; Braunschweiper & Co., 89 Fed. Rep. 76 X. E. Rep. 276; Daniel v. White- 664-668; citing Kohler Mfg. Co. v. house, 15 R. P. C. 134. CTIAPTKTx^ VT. GOODWILL. §94, Defined. — Goodwill, hccauso of tlio various forms in which it exists, is dinit-ult of definition. It may he j)ersonal, in whieh event it is the i-esuit of the lahor and efforts of the person to whom it hel(inj;s and survives a ehan 'the favor which the management of a business wins from tin* pul)Iic, and the proliability that old customers will continue their patrona;:e.' " Mc- CJratli, .F., in Williams v. Farrand, 88 Mich. 47.'{-477. Tiiis is .ludge Cooley's definition, whieli has beiii approved in Whit<' v. Trowbridge, 210 Pa. 11; 04 Atl. Rep. 802. "ll\fT<' is cfinsiderable dilTiculty in defining uccurutcly what is in- U\p ".«;taii(ls on tlic .same foot- iuM-.slii|> affairs as the laii^'iblc <'hif the establish- ment to fill orders promjitly, or ill the personal integrity or skill of a dealer or manufacturer, fiimil iarity of the public with a desig- nating name fur the product, and 221 GOODWILL. [§95 property;"' the name and style under wliieli its business lias been conducted is a part of tlie {goodwill.' Cori)oratioii8 may acquire goodwill, just as natural persons, and an assignee of th(3 corporate fi:ood\vill and business may use the; old cor- porate name, either with or without an iiicorj)oration." That goodwill attaches to the capital stock. "There is no goodwill in a share of stock over and above the goodwill which belongs to the corporation, and if the corporation sells and conveys all that it possesses 'capable of private owTiership,' it sells and conveys Lta goodwill, and there is nothing left of goodwill or anything else belonging to the stockholders."^ Goodwill which is local, and not personal in nature, will pass to the /rustee in bankruj^tcy.*^ §95. In particular cases. — "As applied to a newspaper, the goodwill usually attaches to its name rather than to the place of publication. The probability of the title continuing to attract custom in the way of circulation and advertising pSjTonage, gives a value which may be protected and disposed of and constitutes property. "'^ probabh' many otlier oircumatanccs, might 1)0 mi'iitionod as illustrative. The goodwill is a sort of beaten pathway from the seller to the buyer, usually established and made easy of passage by years of effort and expense in advertising, solicita- tion, and recommendation by travel- ing agents, exhibition tests or dis- plays of goods, often by acquaint- ance with local dealers wlio enjoy confidence of tlu'ir own neighbors, and the like." Rowell v. Rowell, 122 Wis. 1. 17. "The peculiar right, or rather ex- pectancy, called 'goodwill,' assumes tliat certain business has been es- tablished and carried on at some specific place. It consists in the probability, based upon the habits of men, that the persons who have been accustomed to deal with that business, at that specific place, as well as others will continue to go to such place and deal in the future." Pomeroy, Eq. Juris. § 135"); adopted by Stewart, J., ilV Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 2;J9 Pa. 42; 86 Atl. Rep. 634. 4— Iman v. Inkster, 90 Xeb. 704; 134 X. W. Rep. 265. 5 — James Van Dyk Co. v. F. V. Reilly Co., 130 N. Y. S. 755; 73 Misc. Rep. 87. 0— United States L. & H. Co. v. United States L. & H. Co., 181 Fed. Rep. 182, 184. 7 — Mr. Justice Brewer, in San Francisco Natl. Bank v. Dodge, 197 U. S. 70, 93 ; 49 L. Ed. 669. 8— Loveland. Bankrujitcy, § 390. 9 — Metropolitan Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 149 U. S. 436- 446; 37 L. Ed. 799; affirming s. c, 36 Fed. Rep. 722. To the same effect see Porter v. Gorman. 65 Ga. 11; Dayton v. Wilkes, 17 How. Pr. 510. The goodwill and name of a §95] IIOI'KINS ON TRADKMAKKS. Goodwill is an appurtenant of ovtM-y form of bnsinoss wliicli relies diret'tly upon pnhlic favor. "Hut tiie terms jjoodwill and bnsiness are not synonynions. (ioodwill, like a trade- mark, is but an ineitlent to. and can have no existence apart from, the bnsiness in which it had its ori{^in.'" '" We find in the books eases in which the existence of a valwai)le j^oodwill is found as appurtenant to a wide ranpe of mercantile pur- suits; as. for example, in tlic business of tlonr and grain mer- chants." the manufacture of patent medicines.'- and of ferro plates and j)icture frames.'"' the business of a sta^'c-line." a livery-stable.'"' a milk-route,"' a drinking saloon,'" or where the owners of the App. 1). C. 42."); ir.o o. ('.. r>:j!). 11— Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. -.14 -.522; 32 L. Ed. '.20. 12 — Brown Cliemical Co. v. ^leyer, 31 Fed. Rep. 4r.3; 8. c, V.W r. S. .'.40; 3.-> L. Kd. 247. 13 — Uean v. Knierson, 102 Mass. 480. 14_l>i,.ree V. Full.r. H Mass. 22S. 15 — HerlM-rt v. Diijiaty, 42 La. Ann. 343. 10 — Munsey v. Ihitterli.-ld, i:t:t Mbhh. 41)2. 17— H«.ward v. layior. !>0 Ala. 241. 18 — Smith V. Kvirt-tt. 27 Heiivan, 440. lJI_C„Htelh. V. Kddy, 12 N. Y. Supp. 230. 2i>_.Kc<.tt V. ICnwland. 20 \V. I{. 208. 21— /m (-r- Randall's Kstati-, S N. V. Supp. or>2. 2-2 — Featherstonliau^h v. Fen- wick, 17 Ves. 2ns. 2.*]— Hall V. Hall. -Jo Reavan. 130. 24 — Thompson v. Andriis, 73 Mieh. .-.."> 1. 2") — Parsons v. Tlaywanl. .U I,. .J. Ch. 000. 20 — Hudson v. Dsl.orn.-. 30 L. .1. Ch. 70. 27— Seott V. Maekintosh. 1 V. 4. H. -.03. 28— Turner v. Major. 3 CilT. 442. 20— Armstrong v. Hitner, 71 Md. 118; Tliompson v. \Vinn<'hago Coun- ty, 48 Iowa, 1 ").->. :tO — Maedonald v. Ri(-hardson, I (liir. SI. 31 — Morri.s v. Moss, 2."> L. .1. Ch. 1!I4. '■i'l- Potter V. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. 10 Kx. 147. 3.3 — Hanks v. (iihson, :! I Riavan. .-|00. .34_Spr«itt V. .leffery. lo R. & C. 249; T^aslius v. Charnlierlain, I'tah, 38.'-.; KIliotfH Aj.peal, 00 Pa. 223 GOODWIM.. l§9-'> merchants,-''^' dyers,'"' dealers in works of art and artists' ma- terials,''' dealers in boots and shoes,'''' tobacco brokers,''" hide dealers,'" snuff makers," upholsterers.''- iron masters,^'' deal- ers in seeds, grain aiui plants," carriers,'' milliners;^" and as we "will see elsewhere, physicians, solicitoi-s and attoi-neys may have a vendible goodwill. It is jiatent that a goodwill may be created in cr)nnection with any business, enterprise, oceuj)ation or profession. The older cases exjires.sly denied the existence of a goodwill which could be the sid)ject of sale, in connection with the learned professions. Thus, Lord Chancellor riielmsford, as recently as 1858, said: "The term goodwill seems wholly inapplicable to the business of a solicitor, which has no local existence, but is entirely personal, depending upon the trust and confi- dence which persons may repose in his integrity and ability to condiu't their legal affairs." '' That there is good reasoning in this dictum can not be denied. In a case of later date, in Scotland, it was said : "There is truly no such thing as goodwill in the case of a business carried on by a professional man, such as a physician, surgeon, or law agent, whose success depends entirely upon his own personal skill. It is quite different in the case of a trade or manufacture, where the employer may have the possession of patents or trade secrets, or may, l)y long exercise of his trade or manufacture in some particular locality, have drawn St. Kil : ^[ussclnian & Clarkson's 42 — Chissum v. Dowes, 5 Russ. Appeal, (!2 Pa. St. 81. 20. 35— Kidd V. Johnson, 100 U. S. 43— Hall v. Barrows, 4 DcO. J. & 617; 25 L. Ed. 760. S. 1.50. 36 — Bryson v. Whitohoad, 1 S. & 44 — Iowa Sood Co. v. Dorr, 70 S. 74. Ta. 481. 37 — Knoodlcr v. Boussod, 47 Fed. 4.") — Cruttwcll v. Lvo, 17 Ves. 33/i. Rep. 46."); Knocdier v. Glaenzer, 55 46 — Shackle v. Baker, 14 Ves. 468. Fed. Rep. 805. 47 — Austen v. Boys, 2 DeGex & 38— Curtis V. Cokey, 68 X. Y. Jones, 626-636. And to the same 300. effect see Sheldon v. Houirhton, 5 30— Daviea v. IIod-,'son, 25 Bea- Blatchf. 285, 201, Fed. Case No. van, 177. 12,748; Craver v. Acme Harvester 40— Goodman v. Henderson, 58 Co.. 200 HI. 483 ; 70 N. E. Rep. 1047, Ga. 567. athrminfi Acme Harvester Co. v. 41 — Hammond v. Douglas, 5 Ves. Craver, 110 111. App. 413. 539. 95] lldPKIN'S ON TRAHRMAIIKS. 224 topothor skilled artisans and attracted the custom of a district to his establishment. In sueh a case it is not the individual skill of the enii>loyer. hut the reputation wiiich his cstahlish- ment has ac(juired. which creates lliat incorporeal, but fre(piently valuable, estate known as the ' j^oodwill " of a trade- But there is no sueii thinj; in the case of a professional man. His business dies with him. and the man who comes after him in the district must depend for success upon his own exertions. It is quite true that such businesses are occasionally sold; but wlmt is thus sold in case of a living professional man retiring from business is tndy the personal recommendation which the seller gives to his former clients or patients in favor of his successor, coupled with the jiredeeessor's own retirement from business. But where tjje physician oi' law agent is dead, nothing of the kind can take place, lie has been removed by death from all possibility of competing with the new doctor or the new solicitor, and his voice being forever silenced, he can not give any recommendation to his clients or l)atients." ^^ While the courts have, for the reasons stated, looked with disfavor upon executory contracts for the sale of the goodwill of a i)rofessional man's practice, and have refused to decree 48 — Lord (iirrifliill in Rain v. ^(unro. 1') Scot. L. Rt-p. '2i\0. It lias l)C't*n lu'ld that tlu' goodwill of an attorney was not a subject of administration. Spice v. James, Seb. 4fl; Arundell v. Bell, 02 L. J. Ch. -..37. In an early case, however, it was held that a contract entered into by a practicing attorney to relin- quish practice, recommend his clients to his successor, that he would not practice within certain limits, and would permit the us*- of his name in the flrnt name of his successor for a certain period, was gotKl in law. (IHO.'Ji Hunn v. CJuy, 4 Kast, Hid. And in a similar case, where a wilicitor sohl his jtractice and agrei-d not to [iraeticc in (!reat Britain for twenty years. Lord Lang- dale lield the contract valid and iiinding on the vendor, and he was enjoined from attemj.ting to re- sume his practice in CJreat Britain •luring the specified time. (I84I) Whittaker v. Howe, 3 Beavan, :{S:{. Hut the courts have refused to decree sp«'cific jwrformance of a contract for the sale of an attor- ney's practice. Bo/on v. Farlow, 1 Mer. 4.->!»; Seb. 22; Thornl>ury v. Bevill, 1 Y. A C". Ch. -..'-.4; (5 .lur. 407; Seb. 71. And wliere a niemlier of a firm of surgeons died, it was held that the survivor could not be oblig«>d to sell the goodwill of the prac- tice for the joint benefit of him- Helf and IiIm deci-ased |iartner*s 225 GOODWILL. [§9G specific pcrroniiaiico under sudi contracts,^'' still wiien Die sale is c<)nii)l('ti' and tlic conlract |)artly rxccutcd, its terms will be (Miforcecl.""' flms wlicre a solicitor ri'tircd, permitting his partner to eontiinie tiie use of the firm luime, ni (-(jiisidera- tion of an annuity to he paid him, an Conn. 577; ^lartin v. Mnrpliy, 12".) Ind. 464; Pickett V. Green, 120 Ind. 584; Hoyt V. Holly, :5'.) Conn. 326; Gil- man V. I)svi>;ht, 13 Gray, 356; Dwiffht V. Hamilton, 113 Mass. 175; WarfieUl v. Booth, 33 Md. 63; Miller V. KeeU-r, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 274; Butler v. Burleson, 16 Vt. 176; Ticiu-nor v. Newman, 186 111. 264; 57 X. E. Rep. 826. But, to the contrary, see Man- deville v. Harman, 42 X. J. Eq. 185. In this case the covenant was as follows: "In consideration of this contract, made with him hy the said Mandoville, the said Harman herehy covenants and agrees not to en{,'a<;e in tlie practice of medi- cine or surjjery in the city of Xewark at any time hereafter." The court held that the law was unsettled as lo whether such a contract was or was not void as in restraint of trade, and therefore denied the preliminary injunction scught for. "In the practice of dentistry, the personal qualities of integrity, pro- fessional skill and ability attach to and follow the person, not the place." Braley, .T., in Foss v. Roby, mi Mass. 202, 207; 81 X. E. Rep. 100; 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1200. To the same edect see Hutchinson v. Xay, 187 Mass. 262; 72 X. E. Rep. 074; 68 L. R. A. 186; :Moore v. Rawson, 100 Mass. 404; 85 X. E. Rep. 586; Wightman v. Wiglitman (^lass.). Ill X. E. Rep. 881. As to the sale hy a physician of his interest in the goodwill of his firm, see Mills v. Ressler, 87 Kan. .")40; 125 Pac. Rep. 58. r,.3_Pop,..Turnho v. Bedford, 147 Mo. App. 602: 127 S. \V. Ri-p. 426. § 9GJ HOPKINS ON TRADEM AKKS. 226 become assets in the hands of tlio |)ers()iuil representative of a trailer."'"* or it may be niortjra^'cil.'"' It may he oi ;rroater vahie than the stork of <;oo(|s oi- j)hint of maehinery with whieh tlie business is eai-ricd on,'"' or it nuiy attai'li to the mere name of a pnhlication and liave a dotinite value apart from and in no wise dependent npoji any tnnpible property.''" It ean not be sold, by a judicial decree or otherwise, apart from the business with which it is connected.''** It may be jriven, topethor with the business with which it is connected, in payment for stock in a corporation, so that stock issued solely for such jroodwill will, to the extent of it.s value, be issued for "property actually received" within the meaninfr of section 42 of the stock corporation law of the state of New York.''" The froodwill of a domestic corporation is jiroperty which is taxable as part of its capital stock.''''* That of a foreijjrn corporation is liahle to taxation "at the place where it has a market value."''* A stockholder (lu)ldinfr less than all of its stock) can not transfer the goodwill of a corporation.'*- It is clear that the jroodwill of a jirofessional man can not be made the subject of involuntary sale. In the laufrimpre of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, "certainly there can be no forced sale or transfer in i}iritii}n of such (professional) good- will so far as it is based upon professiotial reputation and standing]:, such as ai'iscs from the skill of i)h>sicians, dentists, .')4 — Tindnl. (". .)., in Hitc'lu-ock v. all of tlic ftssots of llic luisiiu-ss. ("okcr, Ad. & K. •12S-4:)4. S. F. Mvitk Co. v. Inttl.-. IS.'l IniH DinpaUh Co., Hit T. S. 430- Smitli. ITT) Ind. 1S2; (i4 N. K. Hop. 44fi; ;{7 L. Kd. 7n9: Boon v. Mohh, (Wtl; .'iS L. 1!. .\ !M!t. O.". .\ni. St. 70 N. Y. 4n.">. l?l> N. Y. 28 15<'avan. r.2n; M.tn.pcditan Na 70; -VT N. K. H.p. (iS:.; P.Hipl.- v. tional Hank v. St. F.piT V. lloo_Ll,.^v,.llyn V. Rutherford. L. Cli. D. 220; Elliott's Appeal. On R. 10 C. V. 4M^. I'a. St. 101. 76_Dauj,'1ifrty v. Van Xostrand, 78— Parsons v. Haywanl, 31 1 HofT. C'li. (X. Y.) 08; Williams Hcavan, 100; Chitton(K-n v. Wit- V. Wilson, 4 Sandf. Ch. 379. luck, ".0 Mich. 401-421. 77— Ex parte Punnett, L. R. 10 70— Edmonds v. Boston, 108 Mass. 549. § 99] IIOPKIN".^ n\ TRADF.MARKS. 2'M nro juirling witli tlio j,'()o(l\vill of a business, \ uii mean to part with all that ^mmuI disposition whirh rustonicrs onlortain to- wards the liouso of husinrss iiU'iitilicd by the partii-ular name or lirni. and which may indm'C tht'in to continue ^nvinj; their eustom to it. ^'ou can not put it anytliiuj,' sliort of that. That the name is an imj)ortant paiM of the jroodwill of a business is obvious, wiien we eonsidei- that there are at tlu.s moment lar;re banking' finns. and brewinposed to the rulin l.'i!>. Fi-d. lli'p. 8».-); \VtM(! V. IVtrrHon, 8(1— Moxie v (linn.y. \ \-i Mush. 12 Al.ti. Tr. N. S. 178; Smith v. .-.H2-r.n(i; Id N. K. Ke|> 7i:«: r)8 David H. Hrand 4 Co.. iM N. r Am, Rep HH. Ire-., v. Hm.t. Or. Fj]. r»2«; /iS Atl. Ftefi. 1U20. I. ' < I' 1 231 G(X)DWILL. §99 As said by Cliicr Justice I'i^'clow in llio Supreme ('ourt of Massachusetts: "Wlienever such is the intent of the parties, it is carried into eilVet l)y an express stipuhition, whieh, if not in undue restraint ol" trade, may be valid and Ijinding, But we know of no case where any such agreement has been raised by mere imjilieation, arising from the sale of tlie good- will of a person's trade, in coinieetion with a ])artieular place of business where it lias been carried on."''" In a later case involving the sale of the goodwill of a med- ical practice, the same court distinguished the facts fi-oni those in the case quoted fi-om. and held that a sale of this kind of goodwill contained by im])lication a covenant not to re- engage in the medical practice in the same locality. "** An English wi-i1er has said: "As the decisions at present stand, the title to this section is to some extent misleading, inasmuch as the legal position of the assignor of a business, after he has parted with it, is in no way different from that of any other member of the jHiblic, provided, of course, that he has not bound himself by additional restrictive cove- nants."'*'^ Even in the absence of express stipulation, good faith requires of a i)arty who has sold the goodwill of his business that he should do nothing which tends to dci)rive 87 — Basactt v. PiTcival, 87 Mass. (') Allen), 345-347; and to the same offoct soc I'ortcr v. Ciorman, 65 Ga. 11; Knocdlcr v. Boussod, 47 Fed. Rep. 40"); Kiioedler v. Glaenzer, 55 Fed. Rep. S^r,; Ber^'a- mini v. Bastien, 35 La. Ann. 60; 48 Am. Rep. 216; White v. Jones, 1 A1)I). Pr. N. S. 337; Howe v. Searing, 6 Bosw. 354 ; Cnittwell v. Lye, 17 Ves. 335; Dayton v. Wilkes, 17 How. Pr. 516; Hanna v. An- drews, 50 la. 462; Cottnll v. Bab- cock Mfg. Co., 54 Conn. 138; Cos- tello V. Eddy, 128 N. Y. 650; Wil- liams V. Farrand, 88 Mich. 473; Jackson v. Byrnes, 103 Tenn. 608; 54 S. W. Rep. 984 ; noll)rook v. Ncs- bit. 163 Mass. 120; .30 X. E. Rep. 794; Grimm v. Walker, 45 Iowa, 106; Smith v. Gibbs, 44 N. H. 335; !Moody V. Thomas, 1 Disney, 294; Wasliburn v. Dosch, 68 Wis. 430; 32 X. W. Rep. 551; Bradford v. r<-ckham, 9 R. I. 250; Rupp v. Over, 3 Brewst. 133; Moreau v. Ed- wards, 2 Tenn. Ch. 347; Palmer v. Graham, 1 Para. Eq. Cas. 476; Findlay v. Carson, 97 Iowa, 537; 66 X. W. Rep. 759; Drake v. Dods- worth, 4 Kansas, 135; Ranft v. Reimers, 200 111. 386; 60 L. R. A. 291; 65 X. E. Rep. 720; Counts v. Medley, 163 Mo. App. 546; Wes- sell V. Havens, 91 X-eb. 426; 136 X. W. Rep. 70. 88— Dwipht V. Hamilton, 113 Mass. 175. 89— Allan on Goodwill, p. 32. § 99] nOPKlNS ON TRADEMARKS. 232 \\\o p\inliasor of its benefits and ndvantnpos. It is clear that ho has no ri^'ht to hold liinisolf out as i-ontinuing the business whieli lie sold to the plaint ilT. or as earryintf on his former business at another plaee to whieh lie has reiiioved."" In other words, in every ease of the sale of a j^oodwill the vendor nnist not enter into an unfair (•onip<'tition with his purehaser.'" What will constitute such unfair competition must be determined in tlie lifxlit of all the facts in each par- tieular ease. The Massachusetts court has {rone far in holdinir the ven- dor liable to liis vendee, in the absence of an a;:reenient not to engafje in competing business, wherever his conduct is found to be unfair, as directly teluVnif,' to destroy the vahu' of the proodwill conveyed by him. In the lan^'ua{;e of that court, "in each case where the n2-r>97; in N. K. H.p. 713; IlallH 9.3— C'ottnU v. Hal.cock Printin;; Appeal, (1(1 I'a. 4.-.S: KiO Am. Doc. Press Co., M Conn. 122; Willianirt .'•.84; Knocdl.T v. r;iacn/. R. T. New Mar«hall Kn^'ine Co.. 203 MasH. l.^^.l. "Ah the continued patrona^'o 410, 422; Fairfield v. Lowry. 207 of thi- niHtoniers of sueli a »»isin<'SH Mans. 3.-.2; Pacheld»r 4 Co. v. is what makes tlie f,'«H.d\vill <.f 2'V.\ (jorM.wiLL. [§100 §100. Right of vendee to re-assign, — While, as a ^^'cm-ral rule, llic vendee is clothed with all of the rif^hts of his ven- dor as to the subjoet-niatter conveyed, an exception has been insisted n\u,u in the ease of the assiffnnient of tlie rif^lit to use the vendor's name, in wiiieli event the ri{,'ht of the ven- dee to assi^Mi that rij;ht to a third party is denied. "Where the contract is for the sale of the right to use a fictitious name or a tradename or a trademark, or a corporate name though composed of individual names, or where the good will of a business includes the ri^dit to use names of that character, tiien such right is assignable by the ])urchaser and follows the business. But where the contract merely gives to one person the right to use the name of another, such rip^ht is personal, and in the absence of an exi)ress stij)ulation can not be assigned or transferred by tlie purchase to a third party. "«•"' § 101. Covenants not to re-engage in business. — As ^^ e have seen, the mere sale of a f^oodwill does not carry Avith it by implication a covenant that the vendor will not re-en- gage in the same business. Tonsequently. such covenants ,must be expressed in terms, and the construction of such covenants is a matter of law. "While, as we^ave seen, the goodwill itself will be jiassed by the conveyance of the busi- ness, without special mention, the agreement of the vendor not to re-engage in the same business should be as explicit, both as to time and as to the territory, as the circumstances of the case will permit. A frequent defense to an action, based upon covenants not to re-engage in business, is that the contract is void at common law as being an unreasonable restraint of competition in trade. The general rule of the common value, and as it is utterly repiifr- think a court of equity should not nant to the contract hy whicli it liesitate to . and Rivers was fiititlfd to rcsump 1*7 — ro8t4'llo V. Kddy, 12 N. Y. the furniture liusiness if lie saw fit. Supji. 2.'{(5. Aj,'reement.s upon dis- Ba^'liv & Rivers Co. v. Rivers, 87 solution are construed l.y the same IMd. 4(»0; 40 L. R. A. «32. rules as otluT contracts, with a OS — Welz v. Rliodius, S7 Ind. 1 ; view of ascertuinin},' the actual in- Spier v. Lamlidin, 4."» Cia. .310. t«'nt ill tlie minds of the jiarties. 1)9 — CoBtello v. Eddy, 12 X. V. Tlius in a covenant wliicii read "the Supj). 230; TTerliert v. Du|)aty, 42 Miid Rivers covenants tliat he will La. Ann. 343. not I'njja^e in the ?naniifae(ure of 1 — ()nonda;:a Co. Milk .\ssoeia- furniture bo Ion;; as said Ha;.'l»y^co!i- linn v. Wall, 17 Ilun, 404. tinue such husiness," it was lield 2 — Cnssidy v. Metcalf. 1 Mo. .\pp. that Ba^d.y's conveyance of the .'.!»3-(»()l ; H. r. 00 Mo. .'.10; Ilollis v. buHine.iS t<» n c«>rporation was a dis- SluifTer, 'M Kas. 402; Johnson v. iontinuance nf the husincHs t>v him. Moss, 4.') Cal. r>l."». 235 GOODWILL. [§ 101 aiul the vendor w ill 1)0 oiijoiiicd I'roin coiitimiin^' or re-enter- ing business in the territory so fixed.'' The courts of late years have relaxed the old rules so that the restrictive covenant may be unlimited as to area. "It can not be said thai the early doctrine that contracts in gen- eral i-estraint ol" trade are void, without regard to circum- stances, has been abrogated, lint it is manifest that it has been much weakened, and that the foundation ui)on which it was originally i)laeed has, to a considerable extent at least, by the change of cirenmstances, been removed." ' The subject of cotitracts in restraint f)f trade is outside of the scope of this book, but the ff)]lowing extract from an opinion of IMr. Justice Bradley concisely covers the prin- ciples which govern the construction of all covenants of the kind under consideration: "There are two principal grounds on which the doctrine is founded, that a contract in restraint of trade is void as against public policy. One is, the injury to the public by being deprived of the restricted party's industry; the other is. the injury to the party himself by be- ing ])recluded from i)ursuing his occupation and thus being prevented from supporting himself and his family. It is evident both these evils occur when the contract is general, not to pursue one's trade at all, or not to pursue it in the entire realm or country. The country suffers the loss in both cases; and the party is deprived of liis occuj)ation, or is obliged to expatriate himself in order to follow it. A con- tract that is ojien to such grave objection is clearly against public policj-. But if neither of the.se evils ensue, and if the contract is founded on a valid consideration and a reason- able ground of benefit to the other party, it is free from ob- jection and may be enforced. "In accordance with these principles it is well settled that a stijiulation by a vendee of any trade, business or estab- lishment, that the vendor shall not exercise the same trade or business, or erect a similar establishment within a reason- 3 — Ilulitmrd v. Miller, 27 Midi. lon^rth in this o])inion. and also in 1.'). lliill yiirr. Co. V. Wcstorn Steel * 4 — Andrews, .T., in Di.amond Iron Works, 227 Fed. Rep. 588, .592 ^fatch Co. V. l^oel.or, IOC N. Y. (C. C. A. 7). 473-484. The cases are reviewed at § 101] HOPKINS ON TKAhKMAllKS. 236 abU' (listniu'o. so ns not to iiit(>rf»>ro with tlic value of tlio trade, business or thiua purcluisiMl. is roasonabU' and valid. lii like maniu'r a stipulation l)y the vendor of an article to be used in a l)usiiu»ss or trade, in wliieli he is himself enj,Mf,'ed, that it shall not he used within a reasonable re^'ion or dis- tunec, so as not to interfere with his said business or trade, is also valid and biiulinjr. The j)()int of diflieidty in tliese cases is to determino wliat is a rens(ui;ible distanee witliin wbieh the prohibitory stipidation may lawfully have eflppct. And it is obvious, at first jrlaneo, tbat this must depend upon the circuTTistaneea of the partieular ease; altboupb. from the nneortain ebarneter of tlie subject, much latitude must be al- lowed to the .iudcrment and discretion of the parties. It is clear tbat a stipulation tbat another shall not pursue bis trade or emplovTnent at such a distance from the business of the person to be protected, as that it could not possibly affect or injure him, would be unreasonable and absiird. On the other hand, a stipulation is unobjectionable and binding which imposes the restraint to only such an extent of territory as may be necessary for the protection of the party makinpr the stipulation, provided it does not violate the two indispensable conditions, that the other party be not prevented from pur- suing his callinpr, and th.it the country be not deprived of the benefit of his exertions."'^ The covenant not to re-enprapre in business may be entered into by the stockholders of the corporation, whose capital stock and goodwill is beinpr conveyed to a purchaser. The sale of the stock alone does not carry with it by im]i1ieation a covenant not to re-enpracc; indeed, the California court has held in a case where the covenant not to re-enpape was su[»i)f>rted only by the sale of stock in a cori^oration. that as the sale of the stock could not carry with it the nroodwill of the corporation, the element of goodwill did not enter into the transactiftn. and the covenant was void as beinp in r(>straint of trade." The following agreement of stockholders made collaterally with the sale of the business and poodwill of their eorpora- .') — On-jfon St«'am \av. Co. v. 0— Mcrrlinntw* Ad-Sijrn Co. v. Winw)r. 20 Wall. 04-72; 22 L. VA. Stirling,', 121 Cnl. 420. .n:.. 237 G()(ji)\vii.L. [§101 tioii contains a typical c((vcnanl of tlic kind under considora- tion : "This instrnnicnf witiiesseth, that William N'rr-non iJocitli lias purcliascd the plant, ])Msincss and t^oodwili of the busi- ness of the Davis Fresh & Salt Fisii Co., and has i)aid therefor the sum of $17,473.14; that in making' said transfer, and as an indueement to said William \'ernon IJooth to j)ureliaso said plant, business and <;ood\vill and pay the sum aforesaid for the same, we each have agreed that we would not, and we now do agree, oacdi for himself, jointly and severally with him, the said William Vernon Booth, his heirs and assigns, forever, that we will not during the next ten years, in the territory or the immediate vicinity of the territory dealt in by our company, engage or in any manner be interested in, cither directly or indirectly, for ourselves or for others, the same or like kind or character of business as that hereto- fore conducted and now being carried on by said company, its officers, agents, employes and assigns, and that we will not, during the said period of ten (10) years, either directly or indirectly, be guilty of any act interfering with the busi- ness, its goodwill, its trade or its customers, or come in compe- tition with the same; and we will not, jointly or severally either in firms or corporations, or as individuals or in any other way, directly or indirectly interfere with the said trade or business, or do any act prejudicial to the same or any part thereof, or interfere with the persons employed therein ; the meaning hereof being that the said William Vernon Booth is buying and paying for the goodwill of the business in the largest and fullest scope of the term ; and that we will not, and each agrees that he will not, do anything to interfere with or injure the said business, but will during said period, lend his aid and best influence to the promotion and advancement of the same." It was urged in defense of a bill filed by the purchaser to restrain the shareholders from the violation of this agree- ment, that it was void because in violation of the Anti-Trust Act of July 21, 1890. This defense did not prevail because the contract did not have, upon its face, a direct relation to interstate commerce. It was further urged that the cove- nant was void at common law because it was an unreason- § 10*2] IIOI-KINS ON TKA1»1:M AKKS. 2'.\S able rostrnint of competition in tnule. Tliis defense also failed, inasnuieh as the eovenant was merely ancillary to the conveyance of the jroodwill of the corporation. The general rule was announced by the court "that s\ich stipulation is valid if it poes no farther than to sup|»<»rt and protect the interests transferred by the contract ot" sale."" §102. Tlie valuation of goodwill. It is manifestly a mat- ter (»f jrreat ditlic-ulty to secure an accurate valuation of goodwill. Like a trademark it has no value except as an in- tegral portion of the ])usiness with which it is connected, and of which it is a part. We have considered some of the things that enter into goodwill, and it is obvious that its value is a thing entirely indepeiideiil of tlie ei'sh value of the i)hysi- eal assets of the business of which it is a i)art. hi fact, good- will is frecpuMitly sold at a valuation far in excess of the total value of all f)f the |>bysical i)ro|)erties of the busiiu>ss. On the other hand, the value of a goodwill is liable to sudden and violent fluctuation as is the value of a trademark. A single shijiment of inferior goods may reiuler the trade- mark under which they are packed, a- thing of no value, and persoiud goodwill depends for its value upon the continued activity and integrity of the person or persons to whom it belongs. Concerning the valuation of the goodwill of a partnership, the Massachusetts court has said: "While no rule can be laid down by which the goodwill of a trading partuershii> in all eases can be ascertained and its value fixed with mathematical precision and accuracy, yet if it be assumed lliat a linn has been in existence for a time long enough to establish a busi- ness sufficiently permanent in character to include not only its customers, but the incideids of locality, aud a distinctive name, these advaidages eonstit\ite a going busiiu«ss enterprise; and it may then be said that the name and what is done iinder it go together, and a goodwill exists which forms an asset of commercial value in a winding up between |)artners. The fact that such an asset may be difficult of appraisr, Atl. R4. l'.\—ln rr RandaUH Katatc, 8 N. Y. Supp. «{.')2. 2() — Myrrs v. Kalama/.oo Rii^.'fjy Co., ri4 Mich. 21;'); UraHH it Iron WorkH C... V. Payne, .".() Ohio St. IIT); 1!) L. n. A. 82. 21— Cal. Civ. Co enjoined from again engaging in a similar business under his own name.-^ A covenant by the vendor not to re-engage in business may not specify the territory in Avhicli he is precluded from doing business. If from all the circumstances of the case it appears that it was the intention of the parties to limit that territory to a town, county or state, the contract will be so construed, and the vendor will be enjoined from continuing 22 — Datclu'llor v. Tliomson, 8G with tlio St. Louis Court of Appeals Fed. Pvcp. 630. in lioldinf,' that "tho jdaintifT's coii- 23 — Kndicott, J., in D\vioration will be enjoined from conductinj; business with or for the vendor.-' And he is not at liberty to take stock in or to help to organize or manage a corporation formed to cora- jiete with his vendee,-** nor may he deliver poods within the jirohibited territory. alth! I.a. Ann. 172(i; Ht»utt'lle v. Smith, 20_I»Hrkliiirht v. iJiock, \t.. 47 1 Ki Mass. Ill; .Icirorson v. Mar- Atl. R«-p. 1(K)8; citin;,' Hoajiland v. kcrt. 112 Ha. 4!)«; 'M S. V.. R»'p. 7r»8. Si'trur, .38 N. .1. Law, 2:57; Turner Opposed to these casoa we Ratter- V. Kvans. 2 KI. & El. ')12; In re sliell v. Hau.T. !»1 111. App. ISl. Ilorton, 4.'» Law T. (N.S. ) r)41. .•J2— Seott v. Ma.kintosli. 1 V. & 27_I{,.ul V. C'liast". :U Mieh. 400. B. 50:1. As a matter of course 28 — Kramer v. Old, 11!» No. Car. such a covenant will not bo created 1; .'»0 Am. St. U«'p. Or)0. liy implieation. Where the vendor 2«) — Love V. Stidham, IS Ajip. 1). conveyed the goodwill of a school. ('. 300. it was lield that the sale did not .'JO — UiclinrdHun v. INacock. .'J.J N. I'iml liim 1 y imjdication to exert .1. F>i. .'■|!I7. his elTorls tliereafter to secure the 31 — Kin^'< r v llahn. 42 N. -h Ivp atl>ndance of pupils. McCord v. e.iiC. Km.rv N itradl.v, HS Me. :J.".7 ; Williams, t»0 I'a. St. 78. 24:} (J(J()I)\VII,I,. [§104 ness u])ou tlie ('X])irat ion of llic tiiiio. But where the cove- nant was made jointly witli a conveyance of the vendor's <,'()0(lwill, lie was restrained after he re-engaj,'ed in business from iiuikinj; i)ersonal solicitation of his former customers and usinremc Court of Ohio says: "Upon the dissolution of a trading co-part- nership its assets, including the goodwill of the business, may be sold as a whole, either by the part- ners directly, or through a receiver xinder an order made by a court in a case to which they are parties; and that a purchaser thereof, under either method of sale, is entitled to continue the business as the suc- cessor of the firm, and make use of the firm name for that purpose. And further, that when tlie pur- cliaser transfers the property so ac- quired by him to a corporation of which he is a member, organized to succeed to the business, it may § 104] IKU-KINS ON TRAOKMAKKS. 244 \Vhon oiu' i)artiicr has Ixhmi cxpfllfd fmm tho partner- ship hfcause (if his violation of its artirlos. ho will not, in the absence of eontract hindinj: him not to ro-en^M^:o in the business, bo enjoint'd from doiii^' similar business in his own name, and soliciting: patronajrc from cnstomors of the old firm.-'' A surviving' partner who has the ritjht to use the lirm name may enjcdn his deceased partner's executor from usinj; the tirm nanu^ for his own 1)encfit.'''' Upon the ai)p()intment of a receiver for the firm assets, either member of the firm will 1m^ enjoined from so using his own name as to mislead the jmblic into the belief that he has acquired tlie goodwill, since such injunction is necessary to the preservation of the groodwill as part of the firm assets.'" A retiriuf? partner wlio lias sokl the other the firm prop- erty, without makinpr mention of the jroodwill, will be granted an injunction against any use of the firm name by the con- tinuing partner which would 4rive the public reason to believe he was still a member of the firm, to the injury of his new business.^" ri)on the dissohition of a partnership the partner who retains the use of the old premises may lawfully advertise the i>rcmises as being "formerly occupied by" tlic old firm, and either partner may advertise himself as being "formerly of" or "late of" the firm, using words that convey only the facts and have no tendency to deceive or mislead the firm's customers or the ])ublic generallv^^ fiirrv on tlu" Imsiju-ss in the samo niinn' in tin- style of the firm, it lia« manm-r under a eorporate name, in- l.een held that the assi^nimcnt of iludin;,' the name whieh has l.een tlie ri^dit to \w the name is \n'T- used \>y the firm." Williams, J., in sonal and can not In- transferred hy Snyder Mf;:. Co. v. Snyder. .'.I oliio the continuin;,' partner to another. St. 80-00 ; 4:J N. E. Rep. .T2.'., citing Horton Mf^- Co- v. llorton Mf^' Co.. BraHB &. Iron Works v. Payne, no IS F.d. Rep. 8ir.. Ra-l.y i Rivers Ohio St. 11.'). ' <"• V. Rivers, S7 Md. 400; 40 1,. 37_l)awson v. Beeson, T>. R. 24 R. A. 0.12. Ch. D. r»04. 40 — MiP.owan v. McCowan, 22 38_I^.wiH V. Lan^rdon, 7 Sim. 422. Ohio St. 'MO. .in— Rinin^rer v. (lark, 00 Barh. 41— Morj^an v. SHmyler, 70 N. Y. 11.3. Where a retiring partner 400; Tloll.rook v. Neshit, lO.'l MaHB. Htipulafed that the rontinuin^ part- 120; .'10 N. K. Rep. 704. n«*r might continue the use of hin 24r) (jooDwii.i,. [§105 Wliero llic n'tij'iiii^' paiiinT permits tlir nld liini uaiiM' (of which his iiaiiir is a |)art) to bo used, and makes no j)uh- lii-atioii of the I'aet ol" his rotiromciit, he is estopped from (U'liyiii^ the eopartiiei'shij), as ajraiiist a creditor of the eoii- tinuiiij,' partiiei", who has exteiuh'd credit in the lielief that he is still a niemher of tlie firm.'- Upon administration of a partnershij) estate, the goodwill shouhl he in('ln(h'(i in the appraisement of the partnership assets, and if the survivinf; j)artner ai)i)r()pi-iates it to his oM'n use hy continninf? the jjartnershij) business, lie may be compelled to account for its value to the estate of the deceased partner.^-' Where a i)artner came iuto a partnership for a fixed i)criod, agreeing:, "to carry ou business with the defendants for one year, aiul then to leave it in their hands," he was held to have ac(piired thereby no interest in the goodwill of the business.^^ Upon the retirement of a partner, if he i)ermits the other partners to retain the old jiremises and continue the use of the firm name, tlie goodwill remains with tlie continuing j)artners.'*"'' A retiring partner who re-engages in business will be en- joined from using the expressions "our firm," "our new store," and like matter holding out his new concern as con- tinuing the business of the old firm^'"' § 105. Remedies. — The purchaser of a goodwill whose enjoyment of it is interfered with may have his remedy either at law or in equity. These remedies are administered on the same general jirinciples Avhich apply to other cases 42 — Backus v. Tuylor, 84 Ind. tlicr provided for the sak* of his r)03; Ricliards v. Hunt, fi.l Ca. 342. interest to his partner on dissohi- 4.3 — Rammelsherj,' v. Mitchell, 20 tion at the price ascertained in Ohio St. 22. determininfj his share. Tlie court 44 — Van Dyke v. Jackson, 1 E. held that this disposed of hia prop- 1). Smith (N.Y.), 410; Duden v. erty in the poodwill. >raloy, 0)3 Fed. Rep. 183; 11 C. C. 4.-)— Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. A. 11S1. In the latter case the part- r)14; 32 L. Ed. r>2t\. nership articles provided that the 4G — Fite v. Dorman (Tenn.), 57 incomiuf^ partner's interest should S. W. Rep. 120. be ascertained annually, and fur- § 105] Jlill'KINS t>N TKAOKMAKKS. '2\C, of unfair i-uniju'titiciii. and which art* ilis«-u.s.si'il olsew hcrf in this book. The jurisdiction of iMiuity in tliis (-lass of cases is predi- rati'd upon tho fact that llic injury is cont inuin;,'. that its further (tpcration can oidy be lestraincd' by the exercise of the injunctive jjower of the chancellor, aiul that danux}^cs at law atTord no adeiiuate compensation f<»r lh»» injury. If, liowever. tlie phiintiff resorts to an action at hiw, th(» measure of his (hmuijres is well detined by the Supreme Court of ^lissouri: "if plaintiffs lost less than the defendant made, they can not recover the whole of defentlant's i)rolits; if plaintiffs lost more than the defendant mach'. they would not be limited to defeiulant "s piolits. What the plaintitTs have lost by the defeiulant 's breach of covenant, and not what the defeiulant has {rained thereby, is the lejjal measure of dama^res in this case."^^ The ])arties to a contract for the sale of a {roodwill may j)rovide in the contract for a fi.xed amount of damages. In the absence of fiaud, the sum so fixed will be adopted as the measure of damafres by the court. ^^ "Where the parties have so a{,'reed upon tlie anujunt of damages, the vendee, in case (»f a breach of covenant, has an adejpiate remedy at law, and injuiu'tion will not lie.^'-* 47 — H()U<,li, F., in I'l It/. V. Kicli- diitrd (lnma<;;oa liaa been provided in I'lo, 02 Mo. 171-180. And ^o thf cusc ho dot's the net, is suhjcet to same effect see Biirekliardt v. tlii-s (|uaIificatioii : "The question Burekhardt, 'M'l Oliio St. 2<11. , in rvi-ry ease is, wliat is the real 4H — Tixlc V. CJrosH, 127 N. V. meaning' of the contract? And if 480-487 ; l.'i L. R. A. (i:)2; 28 N. K. tlie sul.stanee of th.' agreement is Kep. 4ntract, there would seem will not interfere to restrain a per- to l>e no reason why a court of mth from doin;^ an act which he e 248 The JU't of a vtMulor in ncct'plinjr cinployineiit as a clerk, agent or nuinafrer for a rival of his vendee is a breach of his eovenant n(»t to re-engape in the trade.''' In actions for the breach of such I'ovenants, a provision in the eontraet of sale for licpiidated damages will be enforced according to its terms, uidess the amount so stipulated to be paid as damages is so unjust, oppressive or disproportionate to the actual damages sustained as to be abhorrent to a court of equity.'"" The reason for tiiis rule is that this is "a class of cases where it is next to impossil)Ie to prove the full extent of the damages." °" In the absence of such a stipulation, the valuation of the goodwill will be determined on a basis of the average profits, less interest on the capital invested.''** tliat when tho partnorahip aj;roc- mont how in qufstion was made de- fendant was already a partner of complainant. The present af^ree- ment continued their partnership relation under new terms and also admitted to the partnersliip an ad- ditional partner. So far as the evi- dence discloses, it is indeed diflicult to discern wherein the new partner- ship agreement can he said to have been lienefieial to defendant; hut, considered as an en<:a;:ement involv- inj: the partnership relation of the three |-artners for a future period of time, it is, I think, impossible to here determine that the benefits and disadvanta^'es flowinp from its mu- tual covenants were inadeipiate to HupfHjrt the en;.'a;.'ement r»f defend- ant to refrain from practice at the place and durinj; tin- time speeifled at the termination of the partner- ship." Leamin;;, V. C, in Marvel V. Jonah, 81 N. J. E(|. 3(10; H(\ Atl. Rep. 9fl8. .'i/V— Fleischman v. Rahmstorf, Mvpra; Smith v. Webb. 170 Ala. TiOO; r,H So. Rep. 01.3; 10 T,. R. A. ( N.S. ) 1I!>1; Knowl.'s V. .btm-H, 182 .Ma 187; (52 So. Rep. :>14; Meyers v. Merillion, 118 Cal. 352; 50 Pac. Rep. (!(»2; McAulilTe v. Vau^han, 135 Ga. 852; 70 S. E. Rep. 322; 33 L. R. A. (N.S. I 255; Wilson v. De- laney, 137 la. (53t5; 113 N. W. Rep. 842; Fin<,'er v. Hahn, 42 N. J. Eq. 000; 8 Atl. Rep. 054; KramtT v. Old, 110 N. C. 1; 25 S. E. Rep. 813; 34 L. R. A. 380; Gropp v. Perkins, 148 Ky. 183; 140 S. W. Rep. 380. 5f — Fleischman v. Rahmstorf, supra. 57 — Per Curintn, Kelso v. Reid, 145 Pa. 000; 23 Atl. Rep. 323; 27 Am. St. Rep. 710. To the same ef- fect an' McCurry v. Gibson, 108 Ala. 451; 18 So. Rep. 800; Streeter V. Rush, 25 Cal. 07 ; Potter v. Ah- nns. 110 Cal. 681; 43 Pac. Rep. 388; Newman v. Wolfs«)n, 00 Oa. 704; Holbrook v. Tobey, 00 Me. 410; '"usliin^j V. Drew, 07 Mass. 445; fJeijrer v. Cawley, 140 Mich. 550; 100 N'. W. Rep. 1004; Canady V. Knox, 43 Wash. 507; 80 Pac. Rep. 030; Martin v. Murphy, 120 Ind. 404: 28 X. E. Rep, 1118. 58 — S e a i c h v. Maw)n Seaman Transp. Co.. l.')0 N. Y. S. 570. As to 249 GOODWILL [§ 106 III a suit, upon a iiolc {^mvcu in j)ayin('iil fur a busiiipss witli its real and i)(.'rs()MaI projjerty and goodwill llic dcfi'iidant "will not be ])ennitted to offer testimony as to the vahn; of the separate items of personalty aiul realty;''" this for the reason that "the vendor who sells the •^'oodwill of a business guarantees nothiiifr; for, in the nature of tiiinjxs, he can give no assurance that the patronage of the ])lace will continue,"''" Of course fraudulent representation as to earning capacity of the goodwill may be shown in defense of such a suit.'*' In a suit for damages for breach of the covenant not to re-engage, it is a defense that the i)laintiff failed to pay the purchase ])rice iu full, but the defense can not be set up with- out a showing that, before re-engaging, the vendor ])ut the plaintiff in default by tendering back that })art of the jnir- chase money he had received.''- Where there are no damages stipiilatcd, and no substan- tial injury is proven, the jilaintiff is entitled only to nom- inal damages."-' "The loss of profits, if there are data from which the amount may be ascertained with reasonable cer- tainty, the diminution in value of the j)roperty sold, all may be regarded as elements of the damages which go to make up the measure of recovery."'"'^ Where the defendant has re-engaged in business in viola- tion of a covenant against his so doing, the case is one where "the law will not nicely attempt to limit the amount of repa- ration, but will extend the line of relief so as to embrace all the consequences of the w^rongdoer's act, although quite re- thc mi'thod of valuation of good- crson, 131 La. 204; 50 So. Rep. will of a corporation for the pur- 122. pose of assessing a transfer tax. G3 — Taylor v. IToward, 110 Ala. see In re McMullen's Estate, l')! 408; 18 So. Rep. 311; Breeding v. N. Y. S. 6.-).). That a year of ah- Tandy, 148 Ky. 345; 140 S. W. normal profits should be disre- Rep. 742. garded, see In re Welch, 137 X. Y. 04 — Howard v. Taylor, 00 Ala. S. 941. 241-244; and to the same efTect see 50 — Harschbargcr V. Ehy (Idaho), Burckiiardt v. Burckhardt, 42 Ohio 156 Pac. Rep. 619. St. 474; Mitchell v. Read, 84 X. Y. 60 — Johnson v. FriedhofF, 27 X. 556; Mellersch v. Keen, 28 Beavan, Y. Supp. 082. 453; Rawson v. Rratt. 01 Ind. 0; (Jl— Butler V. Alter, 130 X. Y. S. Lashus v. Cliaml.erlain, 6 Utali, 882. 385; Gregory v. Spieker, 110 Cal. G2 — Moorman & Givens v. Park- 150; 42 Pac. Rep. 576. § 106] llOl'KINS ON TUA1>1:M VKKS. 250 nutte from the urifjiiuil traiisju'titm." '"' Tlic nuMsiiro of llic vendee's ilamafjes \\'\\\ be tin* amount of j)rotits lost during tlie term Ity reason of defeudaiit 's unlawful eompetition. and if. in atldilion. the };oo(hvill of llic business at tlu' <'nd of the term is \v«)rtii less tlian it would have licfii hut for dcfeiul- ant "s unlawful aet. the vendee is entitled to rei-Aver that amount.''" The vendee can not recover the profits realized hy the vendoi* throu)j:h his breach of the contract."" For the jrreater |)art the remedies oj)en to the owner of a [Toodwill whose ri!) N. 07— f!r. ..Mry v. S|iu'k.r. llo Cal. II. 312: -11 .\tl. H.p. 'JSH; \-2 I, i:. l.iO; 4J I'm-. IN-p. .".TH. A. r»«9. 'W — Miller V. Heck (lowm. 7'2 N. 00 — Siilinpr V. .'^alinpr. «!• N. 11. W. K.-p. .">."•:». ."iSO; 4.'i Atl. H<|i. r>.'iS; IJucklinnlt V. r.O— llrwin v. lliiytl.n (Toxas), BiKkliurdt, 30 Ohio St. 201; V.tk<>h 43 S. W. K.p. 01(». V. ForHluM., I) Ltt. Ann. 204; St<-wHrt 70— Di.ImII v. .Stiv.iiH, 3 H. & C. V. niallnromlw. 11 111. App. 379; 023; Crut-BS v. Fosslor, 39 Cal. 336. M«K)n-li<-H.l V. Ilvd.-. ."8 It.wa, 3S2. 231 ooonwiM,. [§ 106 hroii^'ht Ji lii^'licr rental tliaii tlic.v actually did.'' And tlie iiiisri'prcseiitution lias been held to icsciiid the contract wliere the niisstatoiiient was not made directly to the vendee, but to a third i)arty who eommunieated it, with tlie vendor's knowled<;e. to the vendee.^- On the other hand, tin* duty is imposed upon tlie vendee to aet at once upon learning the I'acts which justify a reseission. Where he fails to do so he will be bound by his contract, and his remedy lies in an action for damages,'^^ as lie may recover damapres witliout r"scind- in^' the contract."' AVhencver the false repres(Mitations amount to a warranty, an action for damau'es will lie even in the absence of proof (tf fraud. Otherwise the burden is u])on the vendee to show that the representation was fraudulently made."'"' The nu'asure of damages in such case is the difference between the actual value of its ])ro|)erty at the time of the purchase, and its value if the property liad been what it was represented or wan-anted to be.''' Covenants airainst rc-cTifjaerinf; in business may be spe- cifically enforced, as we have seen, or the vendor may be en- joined from their violation. It has been held in Encrland that with an action for specific i)erformance a claim for dam- apres may be made as an alternative.'^ It has been held that a debtor's goodwill can not he reached by a creditor's bill, because it is not subject to levy, in sat- isfaction of their debts."'^ The application for injunctive relief is froverned by the rules concerniufr similar apjdications in trademark cases. A plaintifV lu'ed not allejje or prove damajre as a pre- requisite to an injunction to restrain a defendant from re- cnjraprinfT in business, in breach of a covenant between the l)arties."" "When a vendee in a])])lying for an injunction also 71 — Lvsiit-y v. Sflliy, 2 L<1. Raym. 7fi — Morse v. Hutchins. 102 Mass. Ills. 4.39; Hawson v. Pratt, 01 Iiul. 9. 72— rilmoiv \. Hood, "> Bing. X. 77— Hipgiavi- v. Case, L. R. 28 C. 97. CIi. D. ^^^,0. 73— Dolull V. Stevens, 3 B. & C. 78— Lilioitlial v. Druckliib, 84 (i23. Fed. Rep. 918. 74 — Snow V. Tlolnns, 71 Cat. 142- 79 — Anderson v. Rowland, 18 148. Ttx. Civ. App. 460; 44 S. W. Rep. 75— Redgrave v. Hurd, L. R. 20 Oil. Ch. D. 1. § 107] HOI'KINS ON THAKKMAUKS. ■Sol asked jmlfrnuMit for tlu^ possession of llic l)ooks aiul papers used by the vendor in the business in wliieli it had engaged in violation of its eoveiuint the order was refused becauso tlu-re was a i-eniedy at law foi- tlieii- recovery.'"' In eases wlier*' the vendor of a goodwill is sought to be restrained from re-engaging in business in violation of his covenant, tlic amount in controversy is the value of the good- will, and the federal courts can not ae(|uire jurisdicticii unless the value of the goodwill exceeds $3,000.''' A violation of a covenant not to re-engage in business is a defense to a suit by the vendor u|)()n notes given by the vendee for the ])urchase money. ''- AVhcre the covenant not to re-engage is incorporated in the bill of .sale, the consideration paid has been held to be not only for the stock of goods, but for the agreement not to re-engage.'^'' § 107. Remedy as to infringement of tradenames identified with goodwill. — Many of the actions for breach of contract in relation to the sale of goodwill have had for their object the restraint of the vendor in the use of the tradename under which the busiiu'ss had been conducted. Where the goodwill and tradename have been sold, the suksequcnt use of the name by the vendor will be enjoined, even where the vendor has reserved the right to rcsunu' business under any other than the old name.'^"' The relief will be granted wliere lliei-c has ])een a con- tract to convey the tradciuinic and goodwill, and the con- sideration has been paid, though the vendor has not made a formal assignment of the goodwill and name.'"''* The relief will be granted where the vendee does not con- tiinu' the use of the old name, but conducts the business under his own name.'*'' 80 — Lawrrncc v. Times Printin;; 84 — Riirr'linrdt v. Rurckliardt. Co.. 00 F.-d. R«'p. 24 20. 42 Ohio St. 474: .M Am. Rep. 842. 81 — I,a\vri'np«' v. TimcH Printin;: 8.'> — t'liiti'd Stntt'S C'orda;jc Co. v. Co., 00 Fed. Rpp. 24-20. Wm. Wnlln Sons Ropt- Co., 35 N. 82— Townwnd v. Ifiirst, "M MinH. V. Supp. 078; 00 Hun. 429. 670. SO— fJrow V. Sclifrmnn. 47 Mich. 8.3— Eiw«l V. IlnvH. Ill Ind. 41; 007; 41 .\m. H.p, 7M7 : 11 N. W. 40 X. K. R«'p. 110. R.p. 404. CHAPTER VII. TRADE SECRETS; RIGHT OF PRIVACY. §108. Trade secrets— Introductory. — "A .secret in trade is fully reco^Mii/ed as property in equity, the disclosure of wliicii will l)e restrained l)y injunction." ' A contract in reference to such a .secret can not he in restraint of trade, "hecause the public has no ri. \. Tloczyiiski, 114 Midi. IB olitaiiH-d I.y any l.rtach t.f con- It'.i; 7i N. W. Ktp. 1J(»; .*iS L. 1!. fldcncc can imt l>c sanctioned. " A. 2(t(l; tJS Am. St. Kep. 4: 28 N. Heicln-nl.acli. 2(1 X. V. Snpp. 11(1- I'.. Kep. 4ti!t; l.J L. \\. A. (5.')2: 24 IKi; amrm.d. 2!t N. V. S!upp. 114:{; .\m. St. Kep. 47:>: Vulcan Dotin- lU Hun, ISS. iiiii;: Co. v. American Can Co., tl7 4 — fJruy, .1.. in reui...dy v. Nor- N. .F. \:>i. 21.1: ".8 Atl. Rep. 200. folk, 08 MuHH. 4.')2. To tlie wum- 7 — Sinra-i. Cireuit .lusticc, in ••(Tc-ct, wo Stewart v. Ifook. 118 Ca. Koliler Mfy Co. v. UiH-alioro (2i, 445; Art S. K. Hep. :t(l!>; iV.i ].. K. A. V.t Fe.l. Kep. .■.72-ri74; 8 C. C. A. 2."i.';: Dohwin v. Craliam. !!• I'ed. 21.'i. Kep. 17. S— WillianiH v. W illianis. :{ Mer. r>— Salomon \. Tl.rtz. 40 \. .1. l.'>7; Seli. 2tt. F>}. 400; Little v. Gallun, 38 N. V. 0— KoUet v. .Mrr.ye^., 1 Sim. \ Si,pp. 48',' S. I ; Cart.'tide v. Outram, ',1 .lur. N. fl — SlmmonH Medicine f'o. v. Sim- ^ '" monn, 81 Kid. Kep. 103; Fowle v. 2j.J IWVDI MOCUKTS : l;|(illT m whom the laltci- ])urchased, ami clo both in competition with him." '" § 109. Protection in equity. — Equity will always act to protect trade-seci'cts, and this ])rotecti()n nmy be either affirm- ative or lu'gative in charactei'. In its affirmative form, relief is granted by injunction to restraiii the unlawful use of such secrets. In its negative form, ejeet lor a i)atent or not."" In one of the early cases in whii-h a ])r(tperty ri^'ht in trade secrets was rccofjnized. the proceeding was one l)ro\i«rht to enforce the sjieeifie i)erformanee of a contract for the sale of the goodwill of a dyer's business, with the exclusive use of a secret mode of dyeinj;. Vice-Chancellor Leach sustained the contract and directed its specific performance. In the course of his opinion he said: "Althoii«.'h the policy of the law will not permit a jreneral restraint of trade, yet a trader may sell a secret of business and restrain himself generally from usin«; that secret. Let the master, in settling: the deed which is to give effect to this ajrreenient, introduce a general covenant to restrain the use of the secret for twenty years, and a covenant, limited in point of locality, as to carrying on the ordinary business of a dyer, both j)arties being willing that the agreement should be so modified," '^ As against employes who attempt to profit by .secrets of which they have obtained knowledge by reason of their em- jdoyment, the right to relief in equity has always been recog- nized. h\ one of the early cases Tiord Cranwortii said: "There is no doubt whatever that Avliere a i)arty who has a .secret in trade employs persons inider contract. exi)ress or implied, or under duty, express or imjjlied, those persons can not gain the knowledge of that secret and then set it up against their employer." '*' 13_T»tl(>\v V. Savournin, 1.') 4r)2; WoBton v. TTcTnmons, 2 Vict. IMiila. 170. T.. U. Kq. 121; Ila-;,' v. Darl.y, 47 14_MonkB, .T.. in W<'Ht«'rvcU v. T.. .1. ("h. r,Cu ; Tluim Co. v. Tloczyn- National Paper Cn.. i:.4 Iiul. (i7.J; nki. 114 Mich. 149; 72 X. W. Rep. .-i7 N. K. Up. '..V2. 140; Salomon v. Hertz, 40 N. J. 15— BrvHon v. ^« liit«lHa I'a. St. 24; Merry- :j.-i; IV'al>ody V. Norfolk, 1)8 MaBs. u.ii(l..r v. M.ic.re, L. R. (1802) 2 O'l-. 257 TRADE SECRKTS ; HKillT Ol' l'I£IVAC\' §109 In order to obtain this icliri" it is not necessary that the employe should have hctii bound to secrecy by contract. In an oi)ini()n dcalinf,' with a case of this character, Jud^e Will- iams said: "Having' ciiti-red tiie service of complainants, and having had iuij)ai-tcd to him their secrets, defendant was, in equity aiul jrood conscience, obliged to i)reserve them as sacredly as his own, and tliis as well without a contract as C'li. r)lS; Simmoiirt Mod. Co. v. Sim- mons, 81 F'-d. Ki'p. 1G3; Sti'wart v. Hook, 118 (;a. 44.-); 45 S. E. Kt-p- 300; C.{ L. R. A. 2.-)r); Sniiitus Nut Food Co. V. Cenicr, l:}4 Miili. :J7(); flO X. W. Rc'p. 4r)4; Stoiu' v. Goss, 05 N. J. Eq. 750; 55 Atl. Rt'p. 736; 03 L. R. A. 344; Vulcan Detinning Co. V. American Can Co., 72 X. J. Eq. 387; 07 Atl. Rep. 33!); revers- ing Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Amer- ican Can Co., 70 X. J. Eq. 588; 62 Atl. Rep. 881 (the same case, upon application for preliminary injunction, <')7 N. .T. Eq. 24.!; 58 Atl. Rep. 2i)0); Sterling Var- nish Co V. Macon, 217 Pa. 7; 00 Atl. Rep. 78; Taylor Iron & Steel Co. V. Xicliols, 70 X. .1. Eq. 541; 05 Atl. Rep. 005; Tahor v. Hoffmann, 118 X. Y. 30; 23 X. E. Rep. 12; 10 Am. St. Rep. 710; Wcs- tervelt v. Xational Paper Co., 154 Ind. 073; 57 X. E. Rep. 5.52; Phila- delphia E.\tracting Co. v. Keystone E.vtracting Co., 170 Fed. Rep. 830; McCall V. Wright. 108 X. Y. 143; vSooy V. State, 41 X. -J. Law, 3!)4; ]\Iacl)eth-Evans Glass Co. v. Schnelbach, 230 Pa. 70; 80 Atl. Rep. 688; Applebee v. Skiwanek, 140 X. Y. S. 4.-)0; 27 X. Y. Cr. R. 78 (under X. Y. Penal Law, § 430) ; American Stay Co. v. Delaney, 211 Mass. 220; 07 X. E. Rep. Oil; Pomeroy Ink Co. v. Pomeroy, 77 N. J. Eq. 203; 78 Atl. Rep. 608; II. H. Wiggins Sons' Co. v. Cott-A- Lap Co., 109 Fed. Rep. 150; Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Sperry, 100 Fed. Rep. 020; Witkop & Holmes Co. V. Boyce, 112 X. Y. S. 874; 61 Misc. Rep. 120; Eastern Extracting Co. V. Greater Xew York Extract- ing Co., 110 X. Y. S. 738; 120 App. Div. 028; Elaterite Paint & Mfg. Co. V. S. E. Frost Co., 105 iMinn. 230; 117 X. W. Rep. .388; O'Bear- Xester Glass Co. v. Antiexplo Co., 101 Tex. 431; 108 S. W. Rep. 007; Stevens & Co. v. Stiles, 20 R. I. .300; 71 Atl. Rep. 802. Tile following contract was liehl valid and binding upon the defend- ant in Fralich v. Despar, supra: "I, Andn-w Despar, of the city of Pittsburg, state of Pennsylvania, in tlie employ of E. C. Fralicii, a manufactun-r of oils, etc., also of the said city of Pittsburg, do sol- emnly swear that if the said E. C. F. makes known to me the ways and secrets of manufacturing and stilling of different kinds of oils, and of the different kinds of grease manufactured by him. that I will not use such knowledge or secrets for my own gain, nor will 1 ever, so long as I may live, divulge or make known in any way the knowl- edge I may receive while in his employ, or any part of said secret, cither of mix in oils or otherwise." § lOD] HOI'KINS ON TR-VDEilARKS. 258 with it." '" Aiul another court lias stntod tin* riil(> as follows: "By a rart'fwl n-adiiifr <'f the various decisions upon this sub- ject, it will be seen that some are made to dei)end upon a breach of an express contract between the parties, while others proceed u|>on the theory that where a eontidential relation exists between two or more ]>arties (Mifratrcd in a business venture, the law raises an iiuplicd contract between them that the employe will not divul^g any trade secrets imi)arted to him. or discovered by him in the course of his employment, and that a disclosure of such secrets, thus aecpiired. is a breach of trust and a violation of pood morals, to jirevent which a court of ecpiity should intervene." '** Where there is such a contract between employer and em- j)loye, it is not objectionable as beinp in restraint of trade."* The oblifjation of secrecy extends to every character of employment. Thus, canvassers who have accumulateloyment. even if there is no express contract on the part of the emjiloye not to divulge said secret process or machinery, the law will imply a promi-se to keep the employer's secret thus intrusted to him."-- Where it affirmatively appears that the trade secret exists, that it has been imjiarted in confidence to the defendant, and 17_Simm(>nH M.-d. Co. v. Sim- 20— T.nmi. v. Kvnns. T-. R. (1802) monH. 81 KmI. H.p, IcrMOO. n Cli. 4(;2. 18 — AdnmK. .F.. in KiiHtmnn Co. v. 21 — Mcrrx wt-atluT v. Monrc. L. n.'irli.-nl.iiHi 20 N. Y Stip.r. 110- II. (1H!»2| 2 Ch. r.22. no. 22— Monks. J., in WcHtrrv.-lt v. in — SimmunH Med. Co. v. Sim- Nntionnl I'liptT Co.. l.'i-l hid. (I7.'l. inonM, 81 Fi-ody v. .Nor- liTS; .'»7 N. K. ."i."»2; foUowc-d in folk, 08 MaHH. 452. llnmilfon' Mf;r. (<.. v. TuMw Mfj;. Co., 210 F.-'l. Hcii. Jol. I(i7. 259 ■y\i\UK SKCHKTS; HIGHT OV I'UIVACY. [§109 tli.'it llic plaiiitilV will Im' iiijiiiTd ]>y tlir (iis.-losurc. if one is made, 111.' dcfeiiso that (Icfciidants do not intend to >jso or divtil^'c tlio Kocrot will not 1)0 {^ivcn much wci^'ht. for the rea- son that under tlie eircumstances an injunction can not harm the defendant, and if the injunction was withheld, arul the secret disclosed, the injury lo tl./' Mlaintiff would Ix- one which the hnv is practically ,io;\erh'ss to remedy.-"' Wliere a desigriier, emi-loyed for his special skiH hy a manu- facturer, makes the entries of formulas invented by him in the course of his employment in books of his OAvn instead of books furnished ])y his employer for tlie |)urpose, the employer is entitled to the knowled}]rf of the formulas.-^ The ])i-in<'iples under consideratioTi extend beyond the re- lationship of master and servant. In faet, throup:hout all of this book that relates to ecpiitahh^ remedies we are but deal- in— Alorison v. Moat, 20 L. J. Corliss v. F. W. Walker Co.. 64 Ch. 248. Fed. R.-p. 280; Press Pe.l.. Co. v. 2(>— I'.dlard V. Photoj^raphic Co., Falk, 50 Fed. Rep. 324. 40 C. 1). (Eng.) 34.5; Moore v. §101)] IKM'KINS UN TU\I)I:M AUKS. 260 exooss of tlif nuinluT ordoroil liy the plaiiitilTs ; -' ami tlu* oxhihition of oti'hin^'s obtuinrd by tlir ilofoiulaiit tliroutrh u hrcai'li of trust, luis hcon rest mined,-" as lias tlu' juiMication of kH'tures. not puMishod or authorized to be i)ul)lisliod by the leeturer-" and the jmblieation of private letters,-"' and the use of a eard index.-" The pro\ind for enjoining the publication of private letters has sometimes been based upon a i)roperty rijrht in them.-'''- and sometimes upon the frnnind tluit their publieation would be i)ainftU to the uriter.-""-' A peculiar state of facts develojied in a recent <'ase is worthy of notice. The jilaintiff. a hardware dealer, had published and distril)utcd to the trade calalo^nies in which the i)riees were marked in li^rures, letters and characters, aecordinp to a secret code devised by plaintiff. The defendant, who owned a eopy of tiu' catalogue, so marked with prices in secret char- acters, obtained a coi)y of the key to the code from on6 of the plaintiff's employes, and incorporated the secret code from the key into the catalogue. Upon this state of facts the defendant was enjoined from disclosing the information thus obtained, and a receiver was api)ointed to take cliariL'e of the defendant's copy of tlie catalogiu\'" This case ai)pears to lie in conflict, with tlic Englisji case of R( idrr's Telrc/rani Co. r. Hiiron, where tlu' i)laintiffs devised a cypher code containing cypher w-ords indicating the names of their cu.stomers. Tiiis cypher was com- municated to the defendant while he was in the employnuMit of the i)laintiffs. After he left the plaint ill's and started a rival business, he sent advertiscnients to their cu.stomers stating that he had tlu'ir cyplicrs. and sdliriting their custom. 27— Tuck & Sons v. rri<-Ht4 34— Simmons Tlardwarf Co. v. L. .T. Cli. '203: I'.rcrvHl v. IMiippn. WuHmI, 1 So Dak. 488: 47 N. W. 2 VfH. 4 n. 10. n.p. S11. II r.. h. .\. 2r.7. 31 — Oxypatlior t'o. \. !)<• I'ordiTo, 149 N. Y. K. r.1.3; PecrlcBH TatUTn •2i)] TKADK SKCKETS; HIUUT OF I'HIVACY. [§1'^-' Tho foiirt lield tliiit the delViuIaiit was ^Miilly of no hreacli of trust l)0('aiise the eypliers were known to the eustomcrs, and the (h'fendaiit eould liave ohlained the eypliers from any of them who mijrht ehoosc to do business with him.'-' The deeision of the Ameriean eourt seems to be correet in i»riniiple. A wide range has been allowed the defendants^ in unfair eompetition eases in the appropriation and use of the uneopy- righted eatalofrue matter, ])i('torial as well as text, of the i)lain- tiff. as will apix'ar in the illustrative eases eited in the foot note.'"' Nor does injuiu-tion lie ajrainst a defendant whose salesmen use plaiiitifT's eataloprue in solieitiiifr orders, in the absenee of any evidence that such use was fraudulent. •''^ In every ease where the plaintiff seeks i)rotection for a trade seeret, it must ai>pear that it really is a seeret.''** If a so-ealled seeret ])roeess is lawfully known to others in the trade, no one will be enjoined from diselosinj; or using it.-'-' But the faet that the seeret has been the subjeet of a patent, sinee expired, which remained a mere paper patent, aiul dor- mant, does not negative the fact that it is or may be still a secret. "INFany an invention aiul many an idea of value are doubtless to be found in the records of the Patent Office, but so far as pnblic actual knowledge thereof is concerned, they might as well be non-existent."""* Contracts relating to trade secrets are, of course, subject to the same rules of construction as other contracts. So in a case where the defendant sold a formula for making cer- tain soap and "agreed to file and surrender his right and 3r,_R,.ut..r'9 Tflcfrram Co. v. Co. v. Tul)l)s Mfj:. Co., 21(5 Fi-d. Byron, 4.3 L. J. Cli. (HJl. Rep. 401, 411. 3G— Van Kann.'l Revolving,' Door 38— Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. Co V. American Revolving Door Sclinelliach, 239 Pa. 70; 8G Atl. Co., 135 C. C. A. 439; 21.-) Fed. Rep. Rep. G8S. 582; Hamilton Mfjr. Co. v. Tubhs 30— Bell &. Bopart Soap Co. v. Mfjr. Co., 21f) Fed. Rop. 401, 411; P.trolia Mfg. Co.. .^)4 N. Y. Supp. Jewelers' Mercantile Agency v. .Tew- f)f)3-t)()0; Bristol v. Equitable Lif X. Y. 241; 40 Assurance Society, 132 X. Y. 2r.4; N. E. Rep. 872; 41 L. R. A. 846; 30 N. E. Rop. 506; Hamilton Mfg. 03 Am. St. Rep. 666. Co. v. Tubbs Mfg. Co., 216 Fed. 37— Lamb v. Evans. L. R. (lS02i Rep. 401. 407. 3 Cli. 462, 460, 470; Hamilton Mfg. 40— Shiras, .T., in Benton v. Ward, 59 Fed. Rep. 411-413. ^ 101)] IIOI'KINS ON TKVDIMAKKS. 262 claims ill the process and f(>i-iiiul;i' ami iiiaUiii^,' of said soup," aiul that lit' "wttuld imt sell any plants in tlif Tnitcd States for the inanufactiiiv of that |)arti('ular kind of soap, during the tonii of twenty years."' it was very pro|)rrly decided that the conti-act did not pi-eclude him from selling' oi- pultin;,' uj) any other kind of a soap plant to or for anybody else; and wliere lie jiut np a s<)a|) plant for niakinjr soaps in jjencral, and the owner of the plant then beuMii the mannfactiire of the particular soap in (piestion, there was no cause of action either as ajrainst him or the owners of the ])lant." P^niployes may be enjoined ftom disclosing' trade secrets even in the absence of an express ajrveement of secrecy, as we have seen, and it is no defense that the em])loye was a minor at the time he entered the employment. '-* A defendant iiad agreed upon enterinlaint of another memb«'r. be enj(»ined from 41 — r.cU & Bdnnrt Soaj* Cn. \. -i:!- IJiinisry. .1.. in Nntimuil diim r.ln.lia MfK- Co., '.t N. Y. Sii|.|.. A Mini Co. \. Hni.n.ll.v. .M N. Y. r,(]:j, Supp. '.K\'.)l. 42— Littl.- v. fialhiH, :iS N. Y. Supp. 487. 263 TKADK SKCKKTS; UHillT OK I'ICIVACn'r [ § 1 OJ) represenliii^' liiinsclf as hciiij^ tlic sole owin-r of sudi secret process." Trade secrets or processes, ii' reduced to writing, are sub- ject to levy and sale under a common law writ of execution. ■♦•''' Where one not a i)arty to the suit had machinery of his own, used in connection with a secret process belonging to him, on premises belonging to a corporation for which a receiver was appointed, on the facts being ])resented to the court the order appointing tiie receiver was so modified as to permit the third party to remove his machinery from the premises, and without the receiver being given the opportunity to inspect the machinery, as such insjiection would lead to the discovery of the process.-*'"' Trade secrets, such as recipes or processes, are proper subjects of taxation.^" A false representation as to the efficiency of a secret process is ground for rescinding a contract for its sale.^'^ It would seem clear, on principle, that a witness not a party to a suit would be fully protected against any attempt to com- pel him to disclose his trade secrets, yet avc find a case hold- ing that a suhpoota duces tecum calling for the production of drawings by such a witness Avas enforced, notwithstanding his objection that the drawings related to a secret process used by him.'" Tliis decision is unsupported by any authority. On the other hand, a defendant in an action for infringement of a process patent will not be compelled to submit to an in- spection of his factoi-y where his answer avers that his i)ro- cess is not that of the patent, and is his own secret. uni)atented process, used from a period antedating the patent in suit.*'''^ Sec. 4908, United States Revised Statutes, a provision relat- ing to the taking of testimony in ir.terference cases jiending in the Patent Office. ])r()vides that no witness shall be guilty 44 — Baldwin v. Von ^riclicroiix. 4S — Fitiicy Ruhbcr-Varnish & 2") X. Y. Supj). 8G7; affirmi'd, 83 Enajnu'l Co. v. Finley, N. J. Ch., 32 Hun, 4.}; .31 N. Y. Supp. 8.-)7. Atl. Rep. 740, (not officially re- 4r)— HaiiU'v V. Fidelity Ins. T. & ported). S. Co., 8 Pa. Dist. R. 207. 40 — lolinson Steel Street Rail 46_Witt V. Reed Flectrie Co.. Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 187 Ra. 424; 41 Atl. Rep. 317. Fed. Rep. 101. 47_/„ ,v Brandreth. .")0 X. Y. oO — Stokes Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Hel- Supj). 1002; 28 Misc. Rep. 4(18. ler, .')() Fed. Rep. 207. § 100] UOPKINS ON TRADEMARKS. -04 of i'()ntoini>t for disobcyiiiK a subpot'im IssiumI by the tlork of any court •>f tlio United States, as provided for by sec. 4900. "for refusiiijx to disclose any secret invention or dis- eovery made or owned by himself. ' In an interference pro- cecdintr. one of the parties to the interference refused to answer an interro^'atory i)ropounded to him. plaeinj; his refusal upon the jrround that the (juestion sou«rht to diselo.se a secret discovery or invention, such as is i>roteeted by sec. 4908. It was lield that the witness was not entitled to the protection of the section for the rea.sS on. Claz. Ktn.'l. Tliat proprirfor t.f n 8<'on't preparation a witn-HH may in>t, in n j»r<>Hi-cution who iian made public rcpn-Htnta- »in;oodH. on the ^'round Hentati->nH. Hee Moxie Nerve Food of trade wcret, wo .loneH v. Coode, Co. v. Modox Co., I.'i2 Fed. Rep. 40.3. 265 TKADK SECRETS; HKJIIT OK I'KIVACV. [§11<^ in his own posscssiitii, it is property, or a tiling,' of value, for the transfer of whieh he may demand a price; and, if Jie passes it over to a purchaser on an af^reement to pay, it is no defense 1o the hiltcr to say that there is no i)atcnt."''- One who luis become liound as an employe not to divul|;?e a tra(h' secret, can not (U-fend on the grouiul that the secret was dishon- estly jirocui-cd hy <'(>iiipl;iinant's assignee/'-'' The general nd<'. however, is well setlh'd, that "if tlie jrivinjr of the testimony sought, or the production of the documents called for will disclose what are characterized as 'trade-secrets,' the witness has a lejral privilege to M-ithhold it,"''^ Tn a bill to enjoin the disclosure of a secret process, it is not necessary to state what the ]irocess is,-'^"' nor need it be set out in the decree/'" It has been held, \uuler sees. 888 and 894 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, that a commission to take testimony on written interrogatories will issue, although the interroga- tories apparently call for the disclosure of a secret process; Defendorf, J., holding that "the fact that the defendants say or show that the evidence sought from these witnesses is priv- ileged should not ])revent the granting of a commission."'''^ § 110. Trademarks on products of secret processes. — In 1874, Sir George Jessel, then Master of the Rolls, announced the very fundamental rule that a party would not be per- mitted to apply to an article of his own invention the name of an article made by a secret recipe."^ In a later English case Lord Ilersehell disposed of the defense made in a similar case, that the purchaser did not know the name of the manu- facture of the original product by saying "one man may quite well pass off his goods as the goods of another if he i'y'2 — Mitclicll, J., ill Kr^oj^hor v. .'>;") — S. Jarvia Adams Co. v. McConway & Fork-y Co., 14!) Ta. Knapp, 58 C C. A. 1; 121 Fed. R.-p. St. 444-4r)7; 23 Atl. Rep. 341. 34, 40. .'J3 — Vulcan Detinninf; Co. v. fifi — Pomcroy Ink Co. v. Pomoroy, American Can Co., 67 X. J. Eq. 77 X. J. Eq. 203; 78 Atl. Rep. 698. 243; 58 Atl. Rep. 290; Vulcan Do- 57— Cullinan v. Dwipht, 100 X. tinninj,' Co. v. American Can Co., Y. Supp. 896. 72 X. J. Eq. 387; 67 Atl. Rep. 339; 58— Cotton v. Gillard, 44 L. J. 12 L. R. A. (X.S.) 102. Ch. 90. 54 — Cochran, J.. in Crocker- Wheeler Co. V. BulU)ck, 134 Fed. Rep. 241, 245. §111] IIOl'KINS ON TRADKMARKS, 2G6 pusses tlu'in o(T to pcopU' who will ac-i-cpt them as the inami- fai-ture of anotluT. al(liou}:li tlifv do not know that other by naino at all.'" '" Tlio orifrinatum of a secrot process by an cinploye, followed by the adoption l)y tlie cnii)b)yer of a tradcMiiark for the jiro- dnct of that proeess, leaves in tlie employe no personal right to the nse of that trademark when he leaves the employment of its owner.''" Hut eirenmstanees may arise where an aban- doned formula which has not lost its secret character, may be lawfully adoi)te(l with tlie trademark identifying it8 pro- duct."- » § 111. Actions and defenses. — A controlling element in denying: relief i)i eases of alle^'ed trade secret may be the fact that the ideas communicated to the employe were not known to him to be secret ; and the existence of the alleged secret may be negatived by evidence that visitors were freely admitted to the ]iremises where the alleged trade secret was practiced."- Where the defendant denies all intention to make the use of a secret alleged to be threatened by the bill, the preliminary iiijunction may be denied without jjrejudice to the right to renew the ai)plication."'* At law, an action of tort in the nature of trespass on the ease lies against a defendant for the betrayal of a trade secret, but if actual damage is not proven the recovery will be nom- iiud."' A bill is not multifarious which coujiles a change of mis- use of trade secret with a charge of unfair competition.''"'* It is no defense to an actioTi to enjoin the use of a trade secret by a former emi)loye that the nuiiuifacture of goods by that process by the eor|)orali(iii plaint ilT was iillni riVtw."" r,n— Birmin^'hani \iii..;ar Brew- (i:i— Dii Pont-Df Nomoiirs Pow- «Ty Co. V. Pow.ll, I,. K. (1807) A. (l — 'amcs B. Sipc Co. v. Coliim- .'■.31, r)36; 141 C. C. A. 2H7 (C. C. Ida Hcnniiii,' Co.. 171 Fed. Hep. 29.'.. A., 6th Circuit). 00— S. S. Wliit.- Dental Mfp. Co. 02— TiBmilton Mf^'. Co. v. Tuhl.H v. Mitcholl, 188 Fed. Rep. 1017. Mfjr. Co., 210 Fed. Bep. 101, 401. 207 TRADE SKCKKTS; UIOIIT OF PRlVArV. [§112 AVIicrc a ])IaiiitilV sues fof ton allies I'm- tlic use of the jtro- (luft of a secret pi-ocess under contract, it is no dclcnse that the defendant lias, hy independent c\[)eriinent, discovered the process, theretofore only partially coinniunicafed to it Ity tlu; j)laintifT."'' Ladies is not a defense to the prayer for an injunction against misuse of a trade secret. The plaintiff, even when laches is present, "should not be estopped from enjoining the use of its secret jirocess in the future."''^ As to the decree, in cases of trade secret, it has Ix-en lie]liia Extracting Co. v. Koystono 77 X. J. E(|. 293; 78 Atl. Rep. 698. Extractinfi Co., 176 Ft-d. Rep. 830. 71— Vulcan Dctinning Co. v. 00— Oxypatlior Co. v. De Cor- American Can Co., 80 X. J. Eq. (^•ro. 149 X Y. S. 513. For an il- 443; 85 Atl. Rep. 318. I'lstrativc decree, set out in the 72 — Cooley on Torts, 139. S \\2\ IIOI'KINS (IN Tli \I>1. MARKS. 268 (.US. if t)iu^ wtMo t(» say whotlier or not the rij,'lit of privacy oouki evor bo fxti'iuliHl lo the protection of anytliiii^' more than the reproduction of tlio portrait of an individinil. As yet, there are hut few decisions upon the sid)ject. altliou^'h it has lu'cn consi(h«riihly discussed in Icfjal aiul other i)eriodicals."-' Tlie diflicidly att.Mulant upon the assertion of this ripht appears to resi(h' principally in tlie apparent impossihility of extendinj: tlu' jirotection of ecpiity to this "rilease him. Thus. Jud^rc Parker has stated, in his recent opinion deny- in}; the existence of the rif;lit of privacy, that "the so-called 'ri{;ht of privacy' is, as the phrase suggests, founded u|)on the claim that a man has a right to i)ass through this world, if he wills, without having liis i)icture i)ublished, his business enterprises discussed, his successfid exi)eriments written up for the benefit of others, or his eccentricities commented upon, either in hand-bills, circulars, catalogues, i)eriodicals, or news- liapers; and necessarily, that the things which may not be written and publi.shed of him must not be spoken of him by his neighbors, whether the comment be favorable or other- wise." ''* This dictum calls attention to the rrductio ad ahsur- dum which woidd result if the "right to be let alone" were to be literally asserted. And at the threshold of the incpiiry, it is obvioiis that this "right to be let alone" nuist be so limited as not to interfere with freedom of sjx'cch. The right of the individmil to be protected against i)nblication of fal.se and defamatory matter is fully established, and ade(piately protected by the law. In going beyond the law of slander and libel, in recognition of the iiulividual's right not to be even criticised, or commented upon, a task is being undertaken which is both delicate and diflieult, if it is not. indeed impos- 73_'. .1. 370; r..'i CVnt. 74— HolMTHon v. RoclicBtiT KoM- L. .7. 123; r>7 CVnt. L. J. 301; 30 in;,' Ko.x Co., 171 N. Y. 540. 269 TKADE l^ECFETR; RKJllT OK PHIVAfY. [§^1'' sible. That any such right existed in the (Muniiion law has been asserted, but searcely proven. Again quoting from Judge Parker, "mention of such a rif^lit is not to be found in lilaek- stoue, Kent, or any other of the great eommentators upon the law, nor • • • does its existence seem to have been as- scrted prior to about the year 1890.""'^ Of course, the absence of precedent does not negative the existence of a right and its corresponding remedy, but the right, about which so much lias boon written with the result that the only definition of it Avhich has been formulated is contained in tlie Avords "the right to be let alone." a defini- tion which, on its face, can not be literally construed, and Avhoso necessary limitation seems to be incapable of definition, must be closely scrutinized, and carefully weighed before it can secure a place in our jurisprudence. Tn 1892 this right Avas distinctly affirmed by the Supreme Court of NcAv York in a case'^> in Avhich an injunction issued against the execution and display at the Chicago World's Fair of a statue of Mrs. ?>ebuylcr. which statue Ava.s to be desig- nated "The Typical Philanthropist. " The proceeding Avas brought by a relative of Mrs. Schuyler, and the injunction issued asrainst the members of an unincorporated association under whose auspices the display Avas to be made. The motion for injunction peiulcnte life Avas granted upon the ground that Mrs. Schuyler Avas not a public character because she had not placed herself before the public, either in accepting ])ub]ic oflRce or in becoming a candidate for office, or as an arfi— Marks v. JalTa, -'(i X. Y. r.04. Sr.pp. 908; G Misc. Kop. 21)0. 78— Sclniylcr v. Curtis, 24 X. Y. Supp. 509-511. § 112] IIOI'KINS OX TILVOKMARKS. 272 tiim of her in(li\ iiliial rijrlit of itriva<'\, luH-ausf it mi^'lit be contendetl that she hud never oeeupied siieh a position towards the pnblie as woulil have authorized sueli aetion by any one as b)nj; as it was in op|)osition to her wishes." .hidj^e (Jray in a dissenting: opinion, stated. "I ean not see why the ri^'ht of privacy is not a form of property, as much as the rijrht of eoinj)Iete immunity of one's |)erson."'"^ r'oneernin{x tliis ease, the Supreme Court of Georgia has stated that it "settles noth- in«r as to tlie existence of a rijrht of |)rivacy, l)ut merely rules that if it exists at all. it is a jx'rsonal riL'-lit. and dies with the person." *** Judfre Parker has said of this decision that "It is not autiior- ity for the existence of a ril>n v. HochoBtor Fold- Ch. 1{»0; fiO L. H. A. lUl ; UlO Am. in;; H«>x Co 171 N. Y. r.38; r.4 X. St. Hithf)r, artist, or inventor, who asks for and desires public recopnition, may be said to have surrendered this ri«rht t<» the public."^'* The rifrht of privacy has been reco^rnized by the Patent Office, and, as to portraits of living individuals, the Act of 1905 prohibits their rej;i.stratioii without the consent of the jterson."'' In a recent o|»inion. the Supreme Court of (Jeorpia, per Cobb, J., has sjistained the ripht of privacy as (.f common law origin, in the following language: "The right of privacy has its foundation in the instincts of nature. It is recoRni/.c|T. Caz. '•1 .wiyn ( li.wi.'M." for c-onf.-c-tion- !»!•. Tlic Act of l!Mi.-, in | '» con ery, the; cwmminHioncr »aid. in re- Uiinn tlic provinion "tliat no por K|M.nHC' to the applicant'H Hii;;K.'Htion trait of a living individual may !.<• tliut "Dew.yw" in not an ordinary nuiMterrd an a trademark, exci-i.t Hiirname: "I can not nfrain from liy tin- conBent of huch individual. expreHHin^ the opinion tiiat even if evidenced hy nn inHtrum.nt in it \f' n-Kintralde, no one lian tlie writing." right, without the conm-nt of 275 TUAUK SECRETS; HKJIIT OF PRIVACY. [§ 112 sents any encroachment by the j)ublic upon his rights which are of a private nature as he does tlie witiidrawal of those of his rights which arc of a public nature. A rigiit of privacy in matters purely private is therefore derived from natural hiw." "Tlie injuria of tiie llonian law, sometimes translated 'in- jury' and at other times 'outrage,' and whicii,'' says the court, "is generally understood at this time to convey the idea of legal wron^', w;is comiiiitted, not only by striking with the lists or with the cluh or la.sh, but also by shouting until a crowd gathered around one, and it was an outrage or legal wrong to merely follow an honest woman or young boy or irirl ; and it was declared in unequivocal terms that these illustrations were not exhaustive, but that an injury or legal wrong was committed 'by numberless other acts.' Sandar, Just. Ilammond's ed. 499; Poste, Inst, of Gains, 3d ed. 449. The punishment of one who had not committed any as.sault uj)on another, or impeded in any way his right of locomo- tion, but who merely attracted public attention to the other as lie Avas passing along a ])ublie highway or standing upon his private grounds, evidences the fact that the ancient law I'ccognized that a ])erson had a legal right 'to be let alone,' so long as he was not interfering with the rights of other in- dividuals or of the iiublic."'"' The decision of the Georgia court was unanimous. Judge Parker's opinion in the ease of Rohcrson v. Rochester Folding- Box Co. was concurred in by three, and dissented from by the three other judges. A comparison of the opinions of Judge Parker and Judge Cobb discloses the best arguments for and against the existence of the right of jjrivacy; that of Judge Cobb is well reasoned, and admirably stated; that of Judge Parker is more concisely expressed, and certainly as well grounded in reason. The conservative views of Judge Par- ker are summed up in the following words: "The legislative body could very well interfere and arbitrarily provide that 110 one should be j^ermitted for his own selfish purpose to use the ]ucture or the name of another for advertising purposes no— Pavc.^idi V. New Eii^'laiul Pv. p. CH; CO L. U. A. 101; 100 Am. Life Ins. Co, 122 Ga. 100; .'iO S. E. St. Rep. 101. ^IIJ] imi-KINS ON TK ADKMAKKS. L'TG uithout liis (.-oiisiMit. Ill sm-h ovciit no cmljan-assmciit would result to the ^'eiuTal ItDily of the law. for tlie i-ulc would bo appiii'ablo only to cases provitled for by the statute. The courts, however, being without authority to lejjislate. are re- quired to deeide cases upon itriuciple. and so ai-e necessarily embarrassed by precedents created by an extreme, and there- fore unjustifiable, application of an old principle.""* Since the forcfroing was written, the New Jersey Court of Ajipeals has disai^jiroved the doctrine of Rohrriion v. Rorhcst( r Folding Box Co.,'*'^ and Stevens, V. C, following the latter de- cision, has said of the Roberson ease, "This case can not be sustained on principle;"'''' Avhile the American Law Review has .sili, in \ iiHsar (.'iiUi'f;*' V. IaH)>i«'-\ViK's Hisinit Co., I'M Ftd. Ktp. J»S2. Foll<)\vin;,' Holi- oriMin V. HiK'lii'strr Fol«lin;j Box Co., Now York lias t'naoU-d an act to pr«'Vont tin* iinauthorizfd nsv of tin' iiami' or ji'itun' of any jx-rson for the itur|io.s«- of tradi'. "Strtion 1. A j»orftoii, firm or corporation tliat iiws, for advcrtis- iufi j>iirpo>-(S or for piiri)oHOfl of trade, till- name, portrait or pict»in' of any livinj.' person witliout havin;: first ol)tained the written consent of sucli person, or, if a minor, of his or lier parent or jriiardian, is piilty of a misdemeanor. "Sec. 2. Any j)erson whose name, portrait or picture is used witliiii tliis state for advertising,' purposes or for the purposes of trade with- out the written consent first ob- taiiii'il lis alxiM- pro\ i(U-d, may maintain an e<|uitalde action in tlie su|>r('me court of this state against the |ierson, firm or cy this act, the jury, in its discretion, may award exera- phiry danuifies." Tliis act has twH-n hehl (••)nstitutioiuil in Rhodes V. Sperry & Ilutdiinson Co., 85 N. K. ]U']>. 10)7; VXi N. Y. 223. For an ilhistrative statement of facts sujjportin}^ a jud;,'ment in a suit under the act, see Binns v. \'ita- graph Co., 132 N. Y. S. 237. CHART KR VIII. INFRINGEMENT. §113. Of infringement generally.— The word "infriiige- mcuf is dillieult of exact d.-liiiit ion. For tlic purpf.scs of the present discussion, its broadest meaning, that of tin; infrac- tion or invasion of another's trade riglits, by passing,' off, or attempting to pass off, upon tiie jjublie one's own goods as liis, may suffice. As to technical trademark infringement, it should be more narrowly defined as tlie infraction or invasion of any portion of the mark, symbol or device in which one has acquired a right of in-operty, either by way of reproduction in fac-simile, or imitation. An English text-writer has thus defined it: "Infringement is the use by the defendant, for trading purposes, in connection with goods of the kind for which the plaintiff's right to exclusive use exists, not being the goods of the jdaintiff, of a mark identical with the i)lain- tiff's mark, or eitlier comprising .some of its essential features or colourably resembling it, so as to be calculated to cause the goods to be taken by ordinary purchasers for the goods of the plaintiff."' Vicc-Chancellor Shadwell stated the rule to be that, if a mark contains twenty-five parts and but one is laken {i. c, imitated or copied), liability has been created thereby, and there has been a technical infringement. - The same rule applies to cases of unfair competition, in which no technical trademark is involved. In such a ca.se, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has said "whether there is an imitation in fact * * * must be determined by insi)ec- tion of the rival symbols or devices. It is not to be expected, 1— Kerly on Trademarks (2d E(L, pirated." Filley v. Fassett. 44 Mo. London, 1001), p. .^ti:^. 173; Cox, 5.30; Seb. 313. And to 2 — Guinness v. Ullmcr. 10 L. T. the same effect, Braliam v. Bus- 127: Seb. 80. "The imitation need tard. L. T. N. S. 100; 1 Hem. & not tie exact or perfect. It may tie M. 447: 11 W. R. lOCl ; 2 X. R. limited or partial; nor is it reqni- 572; Seb. 2J6. site that tlie wliole should be 279 §114] lIorKIN"^ UN TIC \1)|M \KK>. 280 of foiirso. that tliorc will ever be an exaet eopy. The imitator will always seek to introduee enoiiph difTerenees to justify a elaim that there has been no imitation, while incorjjoratinjf enou}>:h similarities to carry tlie peneral effeet of the original design to the mind of the unwary purchaser." ' In a similar ease .Judge Laeombe has said: "On the papers and exhil)its ni\\\- before the court, tiiere is apparently an effort still to simulate complainant's distinguishing jjackages, and at the same time i>res(>iit a number of jioints of difTcrence to argue ui»()ii when charged with infringement. It is appar- ently so easy for one who honestly seeks to .sell his own goods as his own to dress them up in such a way tiuit they may be recognized as his own. that, when he offers them to the publie in a dre.ss sufficiently like his neighbor's to deceive the average consumer, courts naturally suspect his motives to be such as his actions indicate."^ * §114. No trademark in form, size, material or color. —It is a well settled rule tiuit there can be no trademark right in the mere form, size or color^' of an article used commercially, or the form, size or color of the jiackage containing it.'- It is :[ Winslow, .T.. in Manitowoc St. 127: In rr Whitakor, Xowton's Malting Co. v. Milwaukee Malting Dig. 130; Adams v. HiMsel, 31 Fed. Co.. lin Wis. r)43; 97 X. W. Rep. Rep. 270; Lorillard v. Pride, 28 389. Fed. R.p. 134; Davis v. Davis, 27 4 — Cuervo v. Owl Cigar Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 490; Nutliall v. Vining, F\\, ')42. 2S W. R. 330; Van Camp Packing -) — Victor Talking Macliine Co. Co. v. Criiikshanks Rros. Co.. 90 V. Armstrong, 132 Fed. Rep. 711. Fed. Rep. 814; Von Miimm v. — Moorman v. Iloge, 2 Sawyer, Witteman, «."> Fed. Rep. 9(i(5; Von 7S; Harrington v. I.il.l.v. U Mumm v. ^\■itteman (2), 33 C. C. RIatchf. 12S: Ball v. Siege], lUJ 111. A. 404; 91 PVd. Rep. 12«; Fleisch- 143; Fnoe»' Morgan's Sons Co. v. niann v. Starkey. 2."> Fed. Rep. 127; Troxell, 89 N. Y. 292; Sawyer v. Rrown v. Dosdur, 147 N. Y. 047- llorn, 4 Hiigiies, 239; 1 Fed. Rep. <"..") 1 ; Charl- s K. Hires Co. v. Con- 24; Manliattan Medicine Co. v. Humi-rs' Co., 41 C. C. .\. 71; 100 Wood, lOS r. S. 21S: hi rr Kane Fed. R.-p. R09-S11; Flagg Mfg. Co. & Co., 9 OfT. (in/.. 10.->; Liggett 4. v. Hohvay, 178 Mass. 83; flO N. E. Myer Tol). Co. v. Hynes. 20 Fed. \\r]>. Ml; K. Regenslmrg 4 Sons v. Hep. 883; Fairbanks v. .lacohus. 14 liiaii K. I'nrtuondo Cigar Mfg. Co., HInUlif. 33.; Fed. Case- No. 4,008; 130 Fed. i{ep. 800. 809; K. Regeis- Wikox 4 fliltl.s Sewing Macliine Imrg A Sons v. Juan F. Portimndo Co. V. Cil.tK.nH. 21 HIatclif. 431; Cigar Mfg. Co., 73 C. C. A. 378 ; 142 IJrill V. Singer Mfg. Co., 41 Ohio F«h1. Rep. 100. 281 INFKLNGEMENT. [§ Hi also an ('stal)lisli(Ml piincii)l(' lliat llioro can bo no trademark ri<;lit in tlic directions, noficcs or usual advertising matter nscd upon or in description of nicrcliandisc' There lias never been a (b'vialion from this rnic in tlie adjndication of the conrts of this country. AVlicncvcr rdicF lias liccn «rrantcd against an imitator or connterfcitcr of cither the form, size, color, mctliod of i)aeking, advertising, or directions nsed by a legitimate dealer, it has been granted upon the broad theory of regulating fraud, and not upon the narrower ground of technical trade- mark infringement. There can be no technical tradcmai-k in a well known ma- terial substance, such as a tin tag impressed upon plug to- bacco;** nor in a method of packing merchandise;" or a display card, with horizontal lettering, for hooks and eyes;^" but a fraudulent imitation of another's tin tag has been restrained ;" and injunctions against the fraudulent use of another's style of ])ackage and method of packing' 2 are frequent, in the absence of any claim to a technical trademark right in the complainant. The courts have been averse to recognizing a trademark right in anything calculated to be useful, aside from indicating origin or ownership. So, in holding that there was no trade- mark right in a series of indentations in plug tobacco, so arranged as to serve as guides in cutting the plug into pieces of one ounce each. Judge Blodgett said : "One of the principles running through the law of trademarks is that there need be no utility attached to the trademark itself — that is, it shall have no useful purpose in connection Avith the goods further than to show the origin or manufacture."'^ There may be combinations of form and color with other things, which will entitle the owner to relief against one dupli- 7_Can(lcc v. Deere, 'A 111. 462; 11— LorilVrd v. \Vrij:lit. M Fed. Ball V. SiejTil, 116 111. 143. Rep. 383. 8 — Lorillard v. Pride, 28 Fed. 12 — W asliinfrton Medallion Pen Rep. 434. f'r>- v. Easterbrook, Fed. Case No. 9 — Davis V. Davis, 27 Fed. Rep. I7,24fia. 400. 13 — Dau?man t*>; Drummond To- 10— De Lon<,' Hook & Eye Co. v. l-aceo CO. v. RulTner, Fed. Case No. Francis Rook & Eye Co., 118 Fed. 3,585; 15 Off. Gaz. 559. Rep. 93S. ^114] IIOl'KINS ON TKADKM AKKS. 282 I'utin^' liis artu'lc. Tims in a case wlu-ri' tlu' ilofoiulaiit clu|ili- cated the plaintiff's talking machine records, injunction issued at:ainst the "manufacture and side of disk records, black or nearly black in color, with a red seal center inscribed with decoration and letters in {jilt, when such records contain the sliop numbers or catalopue numbers of complainant's disk records, or when the sound recordinpr prooves thereon are copies of the prooves on complainant's disk records."" Judpe J. "R. ^McPlierson has well said "the .superficial details of construction certainly need not be identical in nearly every particular;" and hence enjoined tlie defendant from imitating the plaintiff's miner's lamp.'"'"' Finally, it is obvious, that where the resemblance resides in particulars of packapes which have become common to the trade, no relief can be pranted."'' A mark, eonsistinp of a brown-colored-paper cipar-band of peculiar shape, has been held to he invalid, Judge ^IcPherson saying: "Certainly the color alone could not be appropriated by the ('f)mi>lainant as a trademark, nor the shape alone, nor the material alone; and even the combination of these three elements could not make a valid trademark, because neither singly nor in combination do they point to the complainant as the source from whidi the poods are derived."'" In a later case, the doctrine of color as trademark was thus aptly expressed by Judge (later Mr. Justice) Lurton: "Color except in connection with some definite, arbitrary design, such as when impressed upon a circle, star, cross, or other figure, or emjiloyed in definite association with some characteristics whieh serve to distinguish the article as made or sold by a particular person, is not the subject of monopoly as a trade- mark."'^ 14— Victor Talking' ^fachin(• Co. VM\ Fed. Rop- «"^'. ^^'^' »<1'""<'«1. V. Armhtroi.;r. i:J2 Fed. Rop. 711. 73 C. C. A. 378; 142 Fed. Rep. ICO. jr, — (;ri«r BroH. Co. v. Riildwin. 1 8— Npwoomcr & Lowia v. J. A. l.l.'i C. C. A. 4.'i3; 2\'J K«(i. I^tp. S.rivon Co.. 108 Fed. Rep. 021; 04 7;{.-, 710 C. C. A. 77; ritin^' Hinmond Matcli 10 — Srhenk.r v. Awerl)U«h. S'> N. Co. v. Sn^jinnw Mutch Co.. 142 Fed. Y. Siipp. 120. R

(i C. C. A. 22— Cox, Mamial, p. 80; irnt.' to HftO; 110 Fed. Rep. 84S. 8.-)2: Con- WillinmH v. .lolinw>n. Ktiprn. tinriital Tolmrco Co. v. Laruw A 2,'J— S.'1), 00.3; 13 Off. (in/.. 03.-); Bro. Co.. M C. C. A. ftr^l ; 133 Fod. Fed. Caw No. 6,110. Rip. 727. 283 INFKINUK-.IKNT. [§116 auce, eiiainoliiif? llic inside faces of their stoves with wliite enamel. On (lemurrer to the bill Judge liaker said: "If the (luestion for deeision ^vcre simply whether the jjlaintiff could ae(iuir(! the sole li^ilit to use white enamel for the lining of llie doors of its stoves and ranges, it would present a (juestion whose solution would i)rove eml)arrassing. P>ut the case made upon the l)ill and admitted by tiie demurrer is that the defend- ants are numufaetui-ing stoves and ranges having white enamel doors in the similitude of those numufaetured by eom- ])lainant. and with the fi-auduleiit purpose of palming them off upon the ti-ade and the i)ul)lic as the stoves and ranges nuunifaetured by the eom])lainant. Tt is not necessary to deter- mine whether the white enamel lining, which has been long and exclusively used by the comi)lainant for the iinier lining of the doors of its stoves and ranges, constitutes a trade- mark, or wlu^tlier it does not. Tt is sufficient to justify the interjiosition of a court of equity if the stoves and ranges numufaetured by the defendants are i)uri)osely constructed in the similitude of those manufactured by the complainant, with the intention and result of deceiving the trade and public, and inducing them to purchase the stoves and ranges of the defendants in the belief that they are iMirehasing the stoves and ranges of the complainant's manufacture. The imitative devices used upon the stoves and ranges manufactured by the defendants are alleged to be employed by them for the purpose and with the result of deceiving the public, and thereby divert- ing the trade of the complainant to the defendants. This they have neither the moral nor the legal right to do."^^ The question of its collocation must always be considered in connection -with the question of infringement by the use of color. Announcing the opinion of tlie Federal Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, Judge Lacombe has said : "Color, undoubtedly, is a most important element in all pack- age combinations; but there are other elements as well, which go to make np the entire combination. Because a total change of color would so change the general appearance as to destroy resemblance to another package, it by no means follows tiiat color alone would be sufficient to produce a general ajipear- 25— Buck"? Rtovo & Ranjie Co. v. Kicclil.\ 70 Fed. Rop. 7ri8 §11GJ lUM'KINS tt.N l-K \l>i;.M \KKS. '286 anco, ri'S('iiil)liiij; amitlici" piu-kapt'. Il wuiild not Ix' p^iviii-/^ the coinpluinant a monopoly of yellow to restrain the sale of a partieular yellow paekap:e, where, in addition to the eolor, a nmnber of other eleinejits. each dilTerinj,' more or less from its analo|_Mie in <'omplainurchaser. "-'' So that we find many cases in wliicli the imitation of color has been a material element in d(>terminin(i2; reversing,' s. c, 7!) Fed. Rep. !):.4; Fisclcr v. Blank, 1.38 N. Y. 251: Cox, .'lanual. 731; ^IcCann v. Anthony. 21 Mo. App. 83; 38 OtT. C!az. 333; Von Mumm v. Kirk. 40 Fed. Rep. 580; Coats v. Merrick Tliread Co.. 3(1 Fed. R.-p. .324; Phil- udelj)lua Xo.. Co. v. Blakesley Nov. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 588; Procter &. Gamble Co. v. Globe Refininfj Co., 34 C. C. A. 405; 02 Fed. Rep. .357; Johnson v. Brunor, 107 Fed. Rep. 4(lt>; Lalance & Grosjean Mf^- Go. V. X'atinnal F.namelin^' & Stam|iin'_' Co.. 1(10 Fed. Rep. 317; National Biscuit Co. v. Swick, 121 Fed. Rep. 1007: Rains v. White. 21 Ky. L. R. 742: 52 S. W. Rep. 070; Kassol v. Jeu4: Same v. Same, 211 Fed. Rep. 042: 128 C. C. A. 440; Hiram Walker & Sons v. Grubman, 222 F<"d. Rep. 478, 470. 32—73 Fed. Rep. 203. J llTj HOPKINS ON TR.VDEMARKS. 288 ail imitntiuii of tho labi'ls of tlu* t-ompluinunt. Complainant's case rests solely on tiie form of package, which it claims has been so imitated as to make out a ease of unfair competition. "Undoubtedly, a larjre j)art of the consiuiiption of whisky is in public (Irinkiiijj: places, wliere it is dispensed to the con- sumer from the opened bottle. It is always desirable, there- fore, for a dealer who wishes to push the sale of his own goods on their own merits to devise, if he can. some earmark more permanent tlmn a pasted label to distinguish them. Com- plainant's predecessors accordingly, in March, 1890, adopted a brown glass bottle of a ]ieculiar square sha])e, unlike any that had theretofore been used for bottling whisky, or, indeed, so far as the evidence shows, for any other purpose. It is a form of jiackage well calculated by its novelty to catch the eye, and be retained in the remembrance of any one who has once seen it. In order to develop and extend the business they expected to control under their agreement with the Ilan- nis Distilling Company, complainant and its predecessors have expended more than ^ilO.OOO in advertising its said bottling. In all these advertisements the peculiar square-shaped bottle is the chief and most prominent feature. It is not suri)rising, therefore, to find it stated in the moving affidavits that the shape and general appearance of the bottle has become to be principally, if not exclusively, relied on by ordinary purchasers as the means of identifying this bottling of Blount Vernon whisky from all other bottlings, the purity of which is not guaranteed by the distillers, but only by the bottler. Com- j)lainant's bottling seems to have acquired a high reputation, large afid increasing quantities of it being yearly sold, at a price in excess of that obtaiiiod by other bottlers of Mount Vernon whisky. "About December, 1895, defendants, wlio luid been dealing in Mount Vernon whisky for many years, began first to put it up in bottles, which are Chinese copies of the peculiar s(puire- shaped. bulging-necked bottles of the coinplMJiiant. Of course they aver that this was without any intention 'to deceive the ])ublie, or to palm off d(>fendants' goods for complaiiumt's,' They account for the sudden appearance of their output of Mount Vernon whisk v in this form as follows: 'There was a 26i) INFltlNOEMKNT. [§117 (leiuaiul i'or i\Iuuiit Wmiioii whisky aloiif,' in NovciiiIm-T lust, and clefenclaiits soiij^lit a eonveiiiciit and useful packa^^o hi which to phiee their i)ruduet ui)on the market, and ])urehased a stuck of buttles of tlie square furm for that ])uri)ose, without making a special design thercfoi-, aiid in tlie open market;' and alk'ji:o that 'such bottles can be j)urchased of reputable bottle numufacturers from molds used for some time last i)ast.' This last averment may avcII Ix- true. The industry of defend- ants' counsel has marshaled here an array of square-shaped bottles filled with whisky, wliich shows that for some time imitations of complainant's botth' have been on the market. Hut thei-e is not a Avord of ])r()()f to trace back any one of tiiese bottles to a period anterior to the adoption of the S(piare sliajx' by c()mi)lainant 's itredecessor as a distinctive form of ])acka<>re. Despite defendants' denials, — and they only deny intent to deceive the i)ul)lic, not intent to use a form of pack- age just like complainant's, — the court can not escape the conviction that they found the S(puire-shaped bottle 'con- venient and useful,' because it was calculated to increase the sale of their jroods ; and that such increase, if increase there be. is due to the circumstances that the j)urchasers from de- fendants have a reasonable expectation that the ultimate con- sumer, deceived by the sha]ie. Avill mistake tlie bottle for one of complainant's. This is unfair competition within the author- ities, and should be restrained. Injunction pendente lite is granted against the further use of the square-shaped, bulging- necked bottle as a package for IMount Vernon whisky." There never existed a valid reason -why a manufacturer should not be protected in the use of a package so peculiar and distinctive in size and .shape as not to interfere with the packing methods of the trade generally. Tn this respect the law of trademarks fell short in the recognition it should have extended to tradesmen. Avho. like the Cook & Beridieiiuer Com- pany in the ease last mentioned, chose to distinguish their M'ares by distinctive riackincr. On account of this deficiency in the law. occasional hardships were inflicted upon honest tradesmen and the dishonest competitor went unwhipped of justice.33 But the amount of fraudulent trading effected by 33— Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. TroAcll, 89 X. Y. Supp. 292. § 117] IIOIKINS ON TUA1>I:M AUKS. 290 nuMiiis of this fiinii of iiiiitatinii was sure to evoke tlif niliii;,' of the leadiiif; ease in time, and tliere are niiinliers of other eases in whieh an imitation of si/.e and form has been a movinjf frroiuul <»f injnnetion." 'Hit' icm»'(l\' lias in sonu' eases been held to be depeiuh'nt npon proof tluit tlie public has- actually been deeeived by the defendant's paeUajre.'"' It has been ex- pressly held, indeed, that "there is no unfair eompi'tition, apart from the infiin}.'ement of a patent or trademark, unless the eompetinjr jterson so makes or marks his p:oods or eonduets his business that puri-hasers of ordinary caution and ])rudenee, and not those who are exceptionally dull, are likely to be mis- led into the belief that his <;oods are the {joculs of somebody else. "•"'• But it is the jjrobability of deception, and not ])ro<)f tliat customers have actinilly been (b'ceivcd, that controls or should control in all cases of unfair competition as well as in eases of tei-iinical trademark infrin; Co. v. Fellows, 1(53 Mass. l!tl; 40 Ajiollinarifl Co. v. IJrumler. Cox. X. K. l^p. 10".; 2S L. R. A. 44S; 47 Manual. 420; llostettt-r v. Adams. Am. St. Uep. 44S: eitin;; Cilman v. 10 Fed. Uep. S:iH; Sawyer v. Kel- lluniiewell. 1'22 Mass. !:{!); Sin^'er H';.', 7 Fed. Hep. 720; Sjierry & Co. :\If;,'. Co. v. Wilson. 2 Cli. 1). 4.34- V. PcTcival Millin;: Co.. SI Cal. 447; Hrill v. Sin-er Mf;;. Co., 41 2.')2; Noera v. Williams Mf;r. Co.. Ohio St. 127: r.2 Am. Hep. 74; lr)8 Mass. 110; Mo.vie Nerve Food Hol.ertson v. Herr.v. .'lO .Md. aOl ; .'13 Co. v. nauml.aeh. ."$2 Fed. Hep. 20'); Am. Hep. .328. To the same effiH-t, Kerry v. Touj.in. (50 Fed. H<'|>. 272; ^'an Camp Haekinj: Co. v. Cruik- Uiirt v. Smith. 71 Fed. Hep. Kil ; shanks Hros. Co.. Ho Fe.I. Hep. 814; Tlildreth v. McDonald. 104 Alass. \'on Miinim v. Witteman. S.'i Fed. in; 4ft Am. St. r.ep. 440; Hoyal Hep. !Ml(l; iidirmed, HI Fed. Hep. Tlakin^' I'.iwder Co. v. Davis. 2ti 120; 3:1 C. C. A. 4iil. Fed. Rep. 203. 37 — I/milhy. b. J., in SlazenpT 35— Ilildreth v. D. S. MeDonald v. Feltham. H. V. C. 538. Co., 1«4 MuHH. HI; 41 N. K. Rep. .'iO; 3S— All.n H. Wrisley Co. v. Oeo. 40 Am. St. Rep. 440. F. Rouse Soap Co., 87 F< y liiin. and as his ^oods have become known to i)urciiasers, and are houj,'iit as ihe jfoods of the comi)hiinaiit hy reason of their jx-culiar sliape, color and label, no person has the rijj:lit to nse the complainant's foi-iii of package, color or label, or any imitation thereof, in such manner as to mislead jmn-hasers into buyin^^ his goods foi- those of the complainant, whether they Ix; better oi- worse in (piality. ""■''' The registration of such trademai'ks as "a green line or stripe" ai'bitrarily ap])liecl to one edge of a canvas belt, al- tliongh the Patent OHice persists in granting snch registra- tions, can not be sustained. ••'• "Where a plaintiff ])rodneed toy animals, eoi)ie(l by defend- ant, the court observed "both parties have an ecpial right to copy nature," but exjiressed a belief that a different question would have been presented had the defendant copied "gro- tesque, comical dolls, or sinj^uiar variants from normal ani- mals. '•'> In eonnection -with this branch of our subject, it should be noted that, in the absence of a patent, every one is at liberty to re]n-oduce merchandise or machinery made by another. In the language of the Massachusetts court, "in the absence of a iiatent. the freedom of inanufacture can not be cut down under tlu^ name of preventing unfair competition."^- In an earlier case, it Avas said that "apart from these (i. r.. patents for inventions or designs) any one may make anything in any form, and may copy Avith exactness that which another has ]irodueed, without inflicting any legal injury, unless he 3n— Siiwyir v. TTorii. 1 Fed. TJc]). ;Nrar«rar('te StrilT v. Biii'r, 124 C. C. 24-.3S. A. r)()0; 200 Fed. Rep. DOO, cU-alin;,' 40 — Candy Boltinji Co. v. Victor- witli the same facts. Balata Co.. 21."» Fed. Be)). 705. 42— Holm'.s, C. J., in Flagjr :Mf;:. 41 — Hoiifih. J., ill :Nrarjiarcte Co. v. Ilolway. 178 Mass. 83: ;'J) StcifT V. Binjr. 21.3 Fed. R.-p. 204, X. K. Rep. GG7. To the same effect 208; see also Steiff v. Cimlnd Bros., see Pia;,'et v. TIeadley, fiS X. V. 131 C. C. A. 21; 214 Fed. Rep. 500; Suj.p. .3:)1. §11 'J HOPKINS ON TILVDEMARKS. 292 attributes t(» that wliifli lir lias iiiadi- a false origin, by ilaiiii- ing it to be the manulaeture ol' another person."^-' In a later ease, Jiuige Severens bus thns stateil the rule: "Without doubt, a party may adojjt distin^'uishiny: marks to denote the oripin or prodnetion as Ix'inij liis own, oi- lie may adopt some other poeuliar nnMliod of distin^iiisliintr his own ^'oods, and thus retain the beiiefit of tlie irood reputation whieh lie has aequired for them. Rut flio very idea of distinpruishinpr them imjilies tlint it ean not he done liy sncli universal eharaeter- isties as belonp to other poods of the kind and which the pen- oral publie have the undoubted ripht to use."" Rut in mak- inp an artiele whose strueture may be made by anyone, it is nevertheless unlawfid to imitate its ensemble as made by an- other, with the purpose and effeet of misleadinp the jiublic^'' 43 — Johnson. .T.. in Fairlmnka v. Jacobus, 14 Blatclif. 3.37, 330; Fed. Case No. 4,008, and tt> the aamo ef- fect, see Dover Stamping Co. v. Follows, 103 Mass. 101; 40 N. E. Rep. lOf); 28 L. R. A. 448; 47 Am. St. Rep. 448; Marvel Co. v. TuUar Co.. 12."> Fed. Rep. 82!>. 4 1— Globe- Wernicke Co. v. Fred Macey Co., f.O C. C. A. 304; 110 Fed. Rep. 000, 704 ; followed in Burrowea v. Carrom-Areharena Co.. 100 Fed. Rep. 204. 4."> — Cilobe-Wernioke Co. v. Brown & Besly, r)7 C. C. A. 344; 121 Fed. Rep. 00; Marvel Co. v. Pearl, 00 C. C. A. 220; 122 Fed. Rep. 100, distinfnnshes between the cases '. vhich the resemblance between manufactured articles is due to the phynical retpiirements essential to commercial sucecHS, and tliose in which the resemblance of form and • color are unneeessary and manifest- ly deHi;.med to miHre[)reHent the orifiin of the articles. Tliis de- cision, by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dmyinjr injunc- tive relief on the [tceuliar facts of the caw, was [»rtee(lid by I^iiter- prise Mfjj. Co. v. Lander-*. Frary A. Clark. Of) C. C. A. r)87 ; 131 Fed. Rep. 240. and foUowt'd by Yale & Town.- Mf-. Co. V. Alder, 83 C. C. A. 140; 1.-.4 Fed. Rep. 37 (revers- in-r s. c, 140 Fed. Rep. 783), in both of which cases injunctive re- lief was pranted. On an applica- tion for preliminary injunction, Judfje Lacombe has said, "whether the shape of ventilators and loca- tion of parts have been selected be- cause of some necessity or because (if a desire to imitate complainant's sinictnrf is a matter which it WMubl be very difficult to decide npnn allidavits." Rushmore v. Saxon, ir.4 Fed. R.'p. 213. Tlius. it was held that clieek-marka produced on f a liorseslioe nail as an iiill ITorsc Nail Co. v. Mooriov. 167 Fi'd. ru'i; allirrrnMl, C'npowfU Horse Nail Co. v. Mooiu'V, 172 Fed. 826; 07 C. C. A. 248. Similarity of manufactures in details not essential to the per- formance of tlie mechanical func- tion will always be enjoined where it is so extensive as to satisfy the mind of tlie court that defendant was wilfully simulating the non- essentials of the complainant's wares, and that the result is con- fusion in tlie minds of the purchas- ing puhlic. 11. Mueller Mfg. Co. v. A. Y. :\rcDonally & Morrison Mfg. Co., 1G4 Fed. Rep. 1001, lOOo; I\ushmor(> v. ^lanliattan Screw & Stamping Works, 10.3 Fed. Rep. 939; 90 C. C. A. 209. Important issues are, is the similarity neces- sary, or is it inherent in the nature of the article. Baldwin v. Grier Bros. Co., 215 Fed. Rep. 7.3r», 737. For interesting cases of distinctive dress, see Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Co. V. FrA-e & Co., 80 Wash. 133; 147 Pac. Rep. 86.5; Safe-Cab- inet Co. V. Globe-Wernicke Co., 3 Ohio App. 24; 34 Ohio C. C. 528. 4fi — Motley v. Downman, 3 Myinc & Cr. 1-14. 47 — Singleton v. Bolton, 3 Doug. 203; Morrison v. Salmon, 2 Man. & Cr. 385; Crawshay v. Thompson, 4 Man. & G. 3.-)7 ; Taylor v. Ashton, 11 M. & W. 402; Rodgers v. Xowill. 5 C. B. 100; Myers v. Baker, 3 II. 6 N. 802 ; Sykes v. Sykes, 3 B. & C. 541; 5 D. & R. 292. 48— :Millington v. Fox, 3 Mylne & Cr. 338. 40— Glenny v. Smith. 2 Drew. & Sm. 470; 11 Jur. N. S. 004; 13 L. T. N. S. 11; 13 W. R. 10.32; X. l\. 303; Se1>. 247; Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 173; Co.K, 530; Sel>. 313; Amos- keag Mfg. Co. v. Garner (1), 55 Barb. 151; 6 Abb. Pr. X. S. 205; Cox, 541; Scb. 314; Holmes, Booth & Ilaydens v. Holmes, Booth & At- wood Mfg. Co., 37 Conn. 278; Am. Rep. 324; Seb. 340; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 3 App. Cas. 376.301; Col- man v. Crump, 70 X. Y. 573; 10 Alb. L. .T. 3.52: Seb. .570; Shaw v. Pilling, 175 Pa. St. 78-87: Wother- spoon V. Currie, L. R. 5 11. L. 508- 517; McLean v. Fleming. 96 U. S. 24.5-253; 24 L. 'Ed. 828; Liggett ^ Il8j HOPKINS ON TKVDKM AUKS. L*:i4 thut tlio ilofi'iulaiil knew that his tracU'inark rosonihleil any oilier traik'inark,""' ami it lollows that it iiecil not be shown that he knew whose mark his resembled;''' and, the intent of the defendant beinj? immaterial, the faet that he intended to infrinj^'e plaintiffs rights will not entitle the plaintifT to relief if the defendant's nets do not aniimiit to trii.lriii;ii-k iiifrinjjre- ment or nnfair eomjietition.''- There is a line of deinareation, to he noted in this regard, between the elass of nnfair trade eases whieh involves a tech- nieal trademark and that whieh does not. Where a plaintiff establishes by e()mi)etent proof his title to the speeifie trade- mark, infringement is shown by eompari.son witli tlw ticfend- ant's mark. The resend)lanee of the defendant s mark ereates a i)resnmi>tion of fraud.''' But where the i)laintiff has no trademark there is no basis of compai-ison such as existed in the former ease, because there is no technical property right in the i)laintilT. 'Mere resemblance between the goods of the ])arties may or may not be snfTicient to establish the right to & y\\vr Toll. Co. V. Tlyncs. 20 .Xinrrican (anient & Oil Co., C") C. Fill. l?op- •'^'^•''; ^- ^■'- !^i"imon» C. A. in.^r l.'lo IVd. Hop. 70:i, 711; Mfd. Co. V. Mnnsfiold Drug Co.. citin;,' § 7«i of tlu- first edition of !i3 Tcnii. S4; Klpriii Xat. Watch this liook. and (Vnta\ir Co. v. Mar- Co. V. niin..is Watcli Cus.- Co. (2). shall. .^S C. C. A. 4i:i: 07 Fi-d. Rep. 170 r. S. Ofi.")-674: -l.') T.. I'd. 3fi."): 7S."); Tdstuni ('.rcnl Ci". v. Amor- Cravonrtte Co. v. ntMijaniin. 10.") ican Health Ftiod Co.. .'»('» C. C. A. Ff(L 15fp. r.21: American Crocor .-UU); 1 10 Fed. Ucp. 848, 8.V2. Pnh. Co. V. Crocor Pnl>. Co.. 2.") ').*] — "A trademark, clearly such, Ilun, 308. ia in itself evidence, when used hy r,f)_Kinahan v. Kinahan, 1.") Tr. a third party, of an ille^jal act. It Ch. 7.">; Orr-Kwinj,' & Co. v. firant, is of itself <'videne<' that the party 2 Hyde, la.'i; Sinjtor Mfg. Co. v. int<-nded to defraud and to palm 1.00;.', IS Ch. I). 412; Harrison v. ofT his froods as another's." Mr. Taylor, 11 dur. N. S. 408; Fdelsten .lustiee Hradhy. in Tutnam Nail V. Edelslen. 1 DeO. J. & S. 18.-.; Co. V. Ihun.-tt. 1.! Ked. Hep. 800. nnr;.'iss v. Hills, 20 Beavan, 244; And to the same . Ifeet. Hoston Did- Ite^is V. J. A. .Taynes &, Co., IR.'. tite Co. v. Florence Mfg. Co., 114 Mass. 4r.8; 70 N. F. Rep. 480. Mass. 00; M.Lean v. Fhminn, 90 r,l_<^^'artier v. Carlile. 31 Heavan, C S. 24.-.; 24 L. K<1. 828; Menon- 202. 'h'z V. Holt. 12s V. S. ."iU; 32 L. r,2 — Kann v. Diamond Steel Co., Fd. r>2(i ; Lawrence Mf;:. Co. v. 80 Fed. Hep. 700712. "An int.n- Tennessee Mf^r. Co.. 138 V. S. MT ; lion to injure, if no injury he done. 3 J I,. Fd. 007; Halena Signal Oil ronslituteM no >;r<.und for relief." (■>. v. W. V. Fuller & Co.. 112 Fed. J.nkins, .1., in (i. W. Cole Co. v. Hep. lnoJ. H'o:. 295 INl'UINtiKMKNT. [§ 119 injuiictioii. It must he fstahlisluMl that the (Icrciulant is uii- Tairly competing witli the |)hiiiitin'; liis Traud must be proven directly or by inicrcncc. In a recent opinion .Jiulgc liaker says: "While the idea oi" fraud or imposition lies at the foundation of liie law of technical trademarks as well as the law of unfair competition, it must be borne in mind that fraud may rest in actual intent shown by the evidence, or may be inferred from the ciirnmstances, or may be conclusively pre- suuhhI from the act itself. In the ease of unfair competition the fraudulent intent must be shown hy the evidence, or he inferable from the circumstances, wliile in the case of the use hy one trader of the trademark or trade-syiid>ol of a rival trader, fraud will l)e presumed from its wron^'ful use.""'' And the United States Supreme Court states the rule to be that "the deceitful representation must he made out or be clearly inferable from tlie circ\nnstances."'' • "An inference to this effect is justified where, on the party's attention hein^ called to the subject, he unreasonably persists in holding to the imitative dress which he has given to his goods, however innocentl}^ intended, at the outstart. "^"^^ § 119. What persons liable. — With the establishment of the rule that mala mens need not be shown,^'~ it followed that liability for infringement was extended to many persons who, in the absence of that doctrine, could not be reached by the owner of the pirated mark. "All persons in any way con- nected Avith the infringement of a trademark are responsible to the owner for the injury done to his rights. "°** r,4_Clnircli & D\vi<,'lit Co. v. f).! — Lawn-iu't' "Mf-r. Co. v. Tor- Huss. 1)9 Fod. R.'p. 270-270. To tho nossoo :Mf Lamont, Corliss & .34 L. E<1. 907; followofl in Corham Co. V. Horslu'V, 140 Fed. Rop. 763; ^Slf^'. Co. v. Emory-Bird-Tlia.v.>r Co., American Clay Mffl- Co. v. Amer- 43 C. C. A. .511; 104 Fed. Rep. 243. ican Clay Mfjj. Co., 108 Pa. 189 ; 47 244. Atl. Rep. 930. "This is not a case 56— Archbald. J., in Lamont, Cor- of unfair competition, Imt it in- liss & Co. v. Hershey, 140 Fed. Rep. volves only a pure common law 763, 764. trademark. In such case defend- r>7 — Wotherspoon v. Currie. L. R. ant's pood faith is immaterial as .". IT. L. r)nS-.->17; Saxlehner v. Sie- respects the rifjht to injunction." pel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42; 4.') L. Knappen. J., in DeVoe Snuff Co. v. Ed. 77. Wolff, 124 C. C. A. 302; 206 Fed. r)S— Hawley, J., in Ilennessy v. Rep. 420, 424. Herrmann, 89 Fed. Rep. 669-670. § 120] IlOrKINS ON TRADEMAUKS. 'JUG ^120. Of labels, generally. — Tlio ilress of a comiut'ri-ial article usually onilxxlies a label. The consequeiu'o is that llic cases refer to labels, frc(iueutly, as though they were a dis- tinct factor ill the law of unfair competition, to be treated as an entity. i-e<;arclless of the presence or absence of trade- nuirk nuiterial upon them. Thus N'iee-Chancellor \'an Fleet, in the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, has said: "If we speak with accuracy, these ialicls can not he caMcd 'trade- nuirks, ■ but they serve substantially the same j)urpose. They are the nuirks by which the complainant's goods are distin- guished in the markets from all like goods put upon the nuirket by otlier jiersons, and are, for that reason, according to many decisions, just as nnicli under the protection of the law as trademarks are. The law i)rotects them for the same reasons, and in exactly the same way, that it does trademarks. The leading ]U'inciple of the law on this subject is that no man should be permitted to sell liis goods on the reputation which another dealer has established in the market for his goods, and this principle applies with equal force to the case where the goods of such other dealer are known in the nuirket by a label, as it does to the case where they are known by a mark which is strictly a trademark. No dealer can lawfully adopt the label of another dealer, or one so near like it as to lead the public to suppose that the article to which it is affixed was put upon the market by .such other dealer. "•''•' The duty is incumbent upon one entering into competition with an established business to make "an honest effort to accentuate differences in labels aiul wrappers.'''"'"* A label .')!» — Wirtz V. Ea-ilc Rottlin;; Co., ni2 (where tlie marks involved wore .lO X. J. Eq. 1«4; 24 Atl. Rep. f».")8; ci;,'ar lianda) ; DeLoiijr Hook & Eyo followintr Miller Toltacco Manufao- Co. v. Fraiieifl ITook & Eye Co. (2). tory Co. V. Commerce, 4.') X. .T. 1.30 Fed. Rep. 14(5; DeLoii;; ITook A Law, IR, 24. To tlie same effect, Eye Co. v. Francis Tlook & Eye Co., Bo«' American Brewinf? Co. v. Bicn- 7.") C. C. A. 4S4 ; 144 Fed. Rep. fi82 villo Brewery, 1.').*} Fed. Rep. dl.'), (win re tlie liook.s and eyes of the 019; AnheiiHer-Busch Brewing Ansn. reHpective parties were mounted for V. Clarke, 2<5 Fed. Rep. 410; R. .1. ^ah• l.y liein^' stitclu-d on cards). Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Allen (tO— Lacomhe, .1., in Sa.xlehner v. Bros. Tohacco Co., l.'il Fed. Rep. Craef, 81 Fed. Rep. 704. Hl{»; Clay V. Kline, 1 \'.\ F..!. Uep. 2!>7 INFRINGEMENT. [§ 121 used on a patciil cd ai'1i<'lc' docs not Ix'como puhllci juris on the oxpii'ation of the palcnl.''' §121. Of packages, generally. — We liave lierotoforo (see. 54) noted those technical ohjections whieh prevent th(! i)a('k- age in which the merchandise is sohl I'l'oni Ix'in^' a 1 fach-niark. It is evident, I'roni tiie cases referred to in the next jireceding section, that tiie doctrines of unfair competition apply to l)ackages as to every other form of commercial dress in which merchandise is dealt with commercially. The package usually embraces a label; or it nuiy be a car- ton, or other package, upon which the designs, emblems, or words selected by the originator of tiie package are directly imprinted. However it may be composed and ])y whatever means the emblems upon it are affixed, they can not be pro- tected or recognized in equity except when, and to the extent that, they are distinguishing. To be distinguishing, they must not be common to the trade. This principle applies to the component parts visible upon the exterior of the package, as well as to what the English courts have comprehensively called the "get-up" of the pack- age. Judge Lowell, in a carefully considered opinion,''^ quoted the following applications of this rule as applied in England: "lie (the ])laintiff) must make out, not that the defend- ant's are like his by reason of those features which are common to them and other i)eople, but he must make out that the de- fendant's are like his by reason of something peculiar to him, and by reason of the defendant having adopted some mark, or device, or label, or something of that kind, which distin- guishes the ])laintiff's from other goods wliich have, like his, the features common to the trade. Unless the plaintiff can bring his case up to that, he fails. "^'•'^ "The evidence is very strong that one tin may be mis- taken for the other, very likely; but why? Because of the features common to them and common to all.""-* 01 — Centaur Co. v. Killonborger, 03 — Payton v. Snclling, 17 R. P. 87 Ft'd. Rop. 725, 726. C. 48, 52. ()2 — United States Tobacco Co. v. 04 — Payton v. Pnellinfr. 17 R. P. McGreenery, 144 Fed. Rep. 531, 532. C. G28. § 122] lIOrKINS ON TRAOIM AUKS. 298 ''The only (luostion you have tlu-n to coiisultM' is wlictlior the defendant's pet-up Ls so like the plaintiirs' as to be ciU- eulated to be mistaken for it. But when, as in this ease and in the last, what is ealled the plaintiffs' <:et-up eonsists of two totally different thinjis eonibined, namely, a fret-up coni- mon to the trade, and a distinetive feature alTixed or added to tin* eoninion feature, tiien what you have to consider is not wjictiu'r the defendants' jret-up i:^ like tlu> plaintiffs' as rejjards the eoninion features, but whether that whieh specially dis- tiiifruishes the jjlaintiffs' has been taken by the defendants."'"^ §122. The engraver or manufacturer of the label. The rule that equity will enjoin one who participates in the pro- duction of an infrinfiinp: mark or label was first established in GuiiDicss r. I'llincr, in 1847, in which ease the i)laintiffs were brewers of porter, and the defendants, who were engravers, engrraved plates to be used in printinp: labels in imitation of the plaintiff's label.'''^ This decision was followed in 1855 by a ease in which a printer printed and sold labels whieh were fac-similes of the plaintiff's labels, and the ]iiracy was en- joined:'"" and the rule is noAv extended to inehule one who deals in counterfeit labels, thongrh he does not manufacture them.'''^ In 1877 a label printer was enjoined by the Superior Court of New York from the manufacture of labels which were color- able imitations of plaintiff's. In affiniiinfr the decision of the lower court the New York Court of Ai)|)eals announced that it is not necessary in such a ease "to establish a jruilty knowledge or fi-audulent intent on th(^ i)art of the wrong- er* — Paj-ton V. Ward. 17 R. P. C. same ifToct. Colmaii v. rrump, 70 r)8 X. Y. r)73; CiuTvo V. Jnpol) Henkell no— CuinnoRS v. T'llm.T. 10 L. T. Co., (10 Off. Oaz. 440; r>0 Fed. Rep. 127; Sell. SO. 471; Moxif Nerve Food Co. v. (57— Farina v. Silvcrloek, 1 K. & Beaeh. 33 Fed. Rep. 248; De Kuy- J. nOO; 3 Eq. Rep. 883; 24 L. J. Cli. p.r v. Witteman, 23 Fed. Rep. 871; 632; 2r, L. T. 211; 3 W. R. 532; Ilildreth v. Spark.s ^If^^ Co., PO DeG. M. & a. 214; 20 L. J. Ch. 11; Fed. Rep. 484. 2 .lur. N. S. 1008; 27 L. T. 277; 4 08— HenneBHv v. H«Trmann, 8!) W. R. 731; 52 Leg. Oba. 342; 30 Fed. Rep. OtiO ; Cantrell & Cochrane, L. T. 242; 31 L. T. 09; 4 K. & .). Ltd., v. VVittemunn, 109 Fed. Rep. 650; Scb. 130. See also to the B2 290 INKKINGKMKNT. [§122 doer,""" It is now the settled rule that "tlio mere act of jifintiiifj: and selling' labels in imitation of the comi)lainant'H mi^'hl be innocent, and, witliont evidence of an illicit jjnr-pose, would iiol bo a vi()l;it ion of tlic coniplainaiit "s iM cjirtuiis used by the first defendant was dismissed as iiuM|uifal>lf.' • J; 123. Of counterfeiting trademarks. — A eountcrfeit mark is one whieh is a fae-simile (r. j/., an exact copy or reproduc- tion) of a frenuine trademark. Counterfeitiuf? may be accom- plished eillier l)y usiiij; forced facsimile trademarks, or by usinp ponuine trademarks upon goods substituted for those of tlie owners of the trademarks; as by refilliiiart icnlai's conniion to the tra(h' is not an infi-in<.'i' ment.''^ § 126. The test of probability of deception. — The variance of opinion as to wliat constitutes colorable imitation arises from the standanKs adopted by the difTerent courts as to the tendency of the aUej^ed infriiif^'ement to deceive the cautious, ordinary or unwary customer. It is never necessary to estab- lish actual deception. Tjoi'd Westbury said that it was not "necessary for relief in e(iuity that proof should be fjiven of persons having been actually deceived, and having bought goods with the defendant's mark under the belief that they were the manufacture of the j)laintiirs, i)rovided the court be satisfied that the i-esem])lance is such as would be likely to cause the one nuirk to be mistaken for the other.'' '•' Accord- ingly it is no defense to show that all the persons purchas- ing goods bearing the simulated mark were aware that the goods were not of the plaintiff's manufacture,**" or that the 78 — Portuondo v. Monno, 28 Fed. Rep. 16; Price & Steuart, 1115; Ball V. Siegel, 110 111. U7 ■ 56 Am. Rep. 706; In re Ilorshurgli, 53 L.J. Ch. 2:J7; Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Boy- ington, 9 Off. Gaz. 455; Fed. Case No. 14,220; Thornton v. Crowley, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 527; Price & Steuart, 455; Coata v. Merrick, 30 Fed. Rep. 324; 45 Off. Gaz. 347; Marsl.all v. Hawkins, 4 N. Z. L. R. Sup. Ct. 50; Staeliell)erg v. Ponce (2), 128 U. S. 680; 32 L. Ed. 509. 79— Kdelsten v. Edelsten, 1 DeG. J. & S. 200; 9 Jur. X. S. 479; 11 W. R. 328; 7 L. T. X. S. 708; 1 X. R. 300; and to the same effect, see Monro v. Smith. 13 X. Y. Sup. 708; eral de Tobacos v. Rehder, 5 R. P. C. 61; Cartmell, 103; Orr-Ewing v. .Johnston, 7 A. C. 219; 51 L. J. Ch. 797; 40 L. T. 216; 30 \V. R. 417: Cartmell, 249; Seb. 040; Reddaway & Co. V. Bentham Hemp Spinning Co., 9 R. P. C. .503 (1892) ; 2 Q. B. 639; 07 L. T. 301; Braham v. Bus- tard, 9 L. T. X. S. 199; 1 Hem. & M. 427; 11 W. R. 1061; 2 X. R. 572; Sel). 226; Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 168; Sel). 313; Ahhott v. Bak •Ts & Confectioners Tea Assn., W. X. 1871, p. 207; \V. X. 1872. p. 31; Seb. 379 ; Osgood v. Allen, Fed. Case Xo. 10,603; 1 Holmes, 185; 6 Am. L. T. 20; 3 Off. Gaz. 124; .Seb. 410; .Job Printers' Union of Chicago v Cox, Manual, 724; Dixon v. Faw- Kinsh.y. 107 111. App. 054. cus, 3 Ell. & Ell. 537; .30 L. ,T. Q. B. 137; 7 JIur. X. S. 895; 3 L. T. N. S. 693; 9 W. R. 414; In re Christiansen's Trademark, 3 R. P. C. 54; Cartmell, 95; Compania Gcn- SO— Edel.^ten v. Edelsten. 9 .Tur. X. S. 479; 1 DeG. .7. & S. 185; 11 W. R. 328; 7 L. T. N. S. 768; 1 N. R. 300. §127] HOPKINS i)N TKAOKM \UKS. 302 maker of tlio spurious poods, or tlio jolih^r who sells them to retailers, informs tliose who purehase that the artiele is spur- ious or an imitation ; "' the reason beiny: that there is no assur- anee that the retailer will pive the same cautionary informa- tion to his eustomers.^- So where the defendant elaimed that the gowla l)earing the false nuirk were for his own family's use, he was enjoined ; ^•' and wliere the defendants contended that they did not deal in the jroods hearing the fraudulent nuirk. hut oidy acted as forw ardiri}? ajjents. they were enjoined.'*^ It is always the presumption, however, that the eonsumiufr purchaser has no opportunity of compariuf,' the conHictiufr marks; and this |)resumption is an important element in i)ass- inp upon the ]trol)ahiIity of tlic defendant's nuirk effectinji: deception.^' There is the further pi-esuniptioii which has been rceognized judicially, that the consuming: purchaser is "apt to act (piickly, and is therefore not ex|)ected to exercise a high degree of eaution." **'■ Among other statements of the rule as to the necessary prob- ability of deception in eases of unfair competition we find the following: "It is sufficient if the proofs show that the aetaal and probable result of the use of defendant's label will be to deceive tlie ordinary purchaser making purchases in the ordi- nary way." ''" § 127. The degree of resemblance which constitutes in- fringement. It follows from the principles which we have HI — foiitH \. llnll.rn..k. '2 Simdf. S.". — rillslniry v. Pillsliury-Watjli- Cli. .'•.Rfl; S<'l). 79. Iiiini Co., (i4 K.d. I{i|). S41; 12 C. H2 — ('liHp|M'll V. DavidHon, 2 K. ('. A. 4.{2; Maiuifuftiirin;,' Co. v. L .1. I2:< *- I'-'; M V <; 1, S,.li. Trainer, lol U. S. rAiU; 2.1 L. Kd. 1.30. Wy.i; Li^'fr«'tt & Myir Tolmcco Co. v. H.'i— I |.iiiaim \. lor.st.r, I.. IJ. llyn.'H. 20 I«Vd. R.-p. .SS3. 24 Hi. I). 231; .V2 L. .1. Cli. i'M'.. sii- I'arirt M.-dicin,- Co. v. \V. IT. 49 L. T. 122: :12 W. H. 2H . (art Hill Co., 102 F.d. R. p. l-lfi-l.-.l; ni.dl. :<31. ^2 C. C. A. 227. 84 — I'pniHiiti V. Klkan. L. R. 12 S7 Hazt-I. .1., in .'Miiminiiin Cook- Eq. 140; 40 \.. .1. Cli. 47r>. 24 ].. T. iii^' rtrnwil Co. v. National Alumi- N. S. firtO; 19 \V. R. R«7; L. R. 7 mini WOrkH, 220 Fed. Rop. SIT), 817. Ch. 130; 41 L. .1. Ch. 240; 2r. L. T. N. S. 813; 20 W. K. 131; Sib. 300. ;;();] infringement. [§ 127 reviewed tlial the (|iiesti()ii of iiil'iMiii-'eiiieiit may he treated from the standpoint of the (h't,M-ee of approximation between the eontlictinf? marks. Tlie iide I'or applying' this test has been tlms expressed: "Wliat defjree of resemblance is nec- essary to const it lite an infrinfjement is in('ai)ablc of exact definition, as ai)plieahle to all cases. All that conrts of jns- tice can do in that rejjard is to say that no trader can adopt a trademark so resemblinjr that of another trader as that ordinary purehasers hnyin*; with ordinary cantion, are likely to he misled. Where the similarity is sufficient to create a false impression in the public initid, and is of a character to mislead and deceive the ordinary ])urchaser in the exercise of ordinary care and caution in such matters, it is sufficient to jrive the injiii-ed i)arty a ri^ht to redress.""" When the rule is stated in this way, it comes back to the oriijinal question, the del ; 24 L. Ed. 82S ; following' l.r. 121 Fed. Hi-p. 200. thf luii^'unp' of I.^)rd ('runwortli in '••I — DcVoc .'-Jnufr f'o. v. Wolfl", St'ixo V. Pnivczvnd.'. i".. H. 1 ("li. I). 124 ('. C. A. .{(12: 20(1 K.d. R.p. 192. S— r.iiinn.-HH v. rilmcr. 10 L. T. Super, ("t. 274; flfl N. Y. fJO; 23 Am. 127. .^.'i' hIwi Ix'atlur ("loth Caso. Ki-p. 22; Si-h. 42.'i; DawvH v. DavirH. 11 H. L. C. r)23; 3r» L. .1. Ch. S3; S«-li. 42fl. 11 .?ur. X. S. .'•>13; 12 L. T. N. 8. 92— Mrl^an v. FLmin^'. 90 U. S. 742; 13 W. R 873; Popham v. Wil- 24.'i, at p. 2.'ifl; 24 L. Kd. 832. cox, 0)', \. Y. 0<). 'SO') INFHINGKMKNT. f§l-^ li-iitlc s('('ui-('(l liy tilt' iiifriiiprcd mark for tlif Ix-iiofit of tin- owner of tlic iiifi-iii^'iii^' iiiarU. Tliat itifi-iii^'ciiu'iit is to be {!<*- tcriiiiiKHl, not \)y tlie (lucstion wlidlK-r any siihstantial j)art of the IradtMiiarlv is copied (»i- (lii|(lieate(l by tlie infrin<.'in|^ mark, hut l»y llie tendency (d" tlie pirated mar-k to deceive (whetlier the careful, ordinary or unwary i)urchaser is im- material), is an anomaly in our jurisprudence. liut the courts have persisted in disre<:ardin^; the technical composition and detail of trademarks, and have invariably ai)i)Iied th(! test of tendency of the suspected mark to deceive. The test i^Miores the absolute ripht of proi)erty wliich exists in a lawful trade- mark, and {rives the owner of such a mark no other or further rifrhts than are given the i)laintiff who uses only generic terms to designate his wares and perforce relies u])on the doctrines of unfair competition."" The broad yu\c as stated above by Mr. .Justice Clifford has been elaborated by other courts. In some eases no reference is made to the care and caution exi)ected to be exercised by the purcliasing public, ••' while in others it is held that it must be shown that the mark employed bears such resemblance to the complainant's trademark "as to be calculated to mislead the i)ublic generally who are i)urchasers of the article;'"'* sometimes it has been expressed as the deception of "the ordinary mass of purchasers;" »^ or, as by the Massachusetts court, that injunction Avill not lie "unless the form of the printed words, the words themselves, and the figures, lines Ofi_T,„r(l Wi'stlmry evidently was Cli. X. S. KU ; SH). ".3; Taylor v. impressed witli tliis tlioujiht Avhen Carpenter (3), 2 Sandf. 603; 11 lie said, "Imposition on the public Pai^'c, 292; Cox, 45; Seb. 84; Cof- is necessary for the plaintiff's title, feen v. Brunton, 5 :MoLoan, 27i€t; l)ut in this way only, that it is a Cox, 132; Set.. 100; Shrimpton v. test of the invasion by the defend- Lai-^ht, 18 Beav. 104; Hardy v. Cut- ant of the plaintiff's ri<,'ht of prop- t.-r, 3 Off. Gaz. 408; Heinz v. Lutz, orty; for there is no injury if the 140 Pa. 592; 23 Atl. Rep. 314. mark used by the defendant is not 98— Walton v. Crowley, Fed. Case such as is mistaken, or is likely to Xo. 17,133; 3 Blatchf. 440-447; be mistaken. l)y the public for the Compania de Tobacos v. Rehder, 5 mark of the plaintiff; but the true R. P. C. 61; Cartmell. 103. -,'round of this court's jurisdiction !)n— Blackwcll v. Wrijrht, 73 X. is property." Hall v. Barrows. 4 C 310-313; Crawshay v. Thompson, DeG. J. & S. 150. 4 Man. & G. 357; 5 Scott X. R. 97— Ransome v. Bentall, 3 L. J. 562; 11 L. J. C. P. 301; Seb. 72. §128] llorKINS i»\ TK SIMM AUKS. 'M)Ct aiul (lovii'tHi, an* so similar that any person, with sucli reason- abh" rare aiul olistTvatioii as tlio jmhlic ifeneriiUy are caj)able of usiiij; ami may be fxpoctcd to exorcise, would mistake the one for the other."' The irreverent layman could not fail to note the remarkable elasticity of the lulc as tiius laid down.- And wc lind a court of i-cpute holding that "it is the unwary, and not tlic wary, who are to be proteeted, as most likely to be taken in by tiie counterfeit;"'' and another saying' that iMpiity "sliould jtrcsumc that the pid)lic makes use of the senses of si^dit and licarintr. and tiuit it i.s possos.sed of a .suflU'ient amount of intcHi{;encc to note the difTerencc these senses convey;" ' and Sir George Jcsscl sayinp: "I am not. as I consider, to decide cases in favor of fools and idiots, but in favor of ordinary Entriisli i)eople. who understaiul English when they see it."'' The best considered oi)inions seem to be those that insist upon fairness in trade even though the only persons likely to be deceived are those who can not read t)r write." 1 — (;i]mnn \. Ihiiintucll. 122 .Iml;.'!' Hciicdict luifl sniil: "It is MasH. l.'J'.t-UH. It is ttnly fair ti) no answer to pay that tlu- ultimate ncite tliat tliis t-asi' was ini|>ro|H'rly purcliasiT was i;,'niirant or un- l»roU}:lit as a trademark cas«', and wary." Von Mumm v. Frash, 50 j-: treat«-d as such hy the court, Fed. Rep. 830-830. The followinfj whereas the facts show that in- casea have lield that the ri^ht to junctive relief could only have relief depends only upon a def^ree Ihh'U firanted, if at all, to restrain of nsemhlanre eal(\ilat»'il to de- tlie unfair competition of the de- eeive the eareless and unwary: fendant. It lias lieen held else- Colman v. Crump, 70 N. Y. r)73, where, however, that the relief will r)78; MeCann v. Antliony. '21 Mo. not Ik- granted where the defend- Aj>p. 83; Wirtz v. Imi;.'K' Rottlin;,' ants' acts are sueh as could deceive Co., r>0 X. .1. K<|. 1(!J; '2\ Atl. Hep. only a careless punliaser. X. K. C.")8. Fairl.ank Co. v. Lu.kel, Kin;; & 4— Munro v. Tousey. 12!) X. Y. 38. Cake S.ap Co., H8 Fed. Hep. (MM. .'>— Sin;,'er Mf;,'. Co. v. Wilson, Hut this decision «as reversed on L. R. 2 Ch. I). 434; ipioted witli a]ipeal; H. c., 42 C. C. A. "70; 102 approval. Munro v. Sniitli, 13 X. F.-<1. Hep. 327-332. V. Sup. 708. 2 — SuliMtantiaily the same dir 0— Walter Haki-r & Co. v. Hiiri- tum is to he found in Hall v. Sie- tan Pure Food Co.. 130 Vn\. \U-]\ U>\. no 111. 137140; citing; Hopham O.SO. 083; Fischer v. Ilhuik. 138 N. V. Cole, 00 X. Y. 00 V. 241; 33 X. K. Hep. 1040; Cox, 3 — Swift V. Dey. 4 Hoh«'rtHon, Manual, Cusu No. 731. Oil; Cox, 310; Seh. 245. Aud 307 INFRINGEMENT. §129 Till' Eiij^lisli courts have devoted mueh time to spoculutiiig Avhollior "most En^Mislimcn" woidd mistake tho defendant's mark i'oi- tlie |)laiiit ifT's, or wlietlier if the mark failed to deeeive "most Kiie that the test is tlie liklihood of deception of the consuming purchaser;* and in applying this test all doubts are to ])e resolved in favor of the eomi)lainant." § 129. Infringement must be by use on same class of goods. ■ — The English Patents, Designs, and Trademark Act, 1S.S3 to 1888, provide that the ai)i)lication for registration must state the particular goods or classes of goods in connection with Avhich the applicant desires the trademark to be registered.'" A similar provision exists in the act of congress of 190-5.'' Aside from these provisions as to registration, it is self-evi- dent that tliere can be no infringement unless the two marks are used on the same class of goods; '- though in this country, 7— Wilkinson v. Griffith, 8 R. P. C. 370-374. 8 — AUof^retti Chocolate Crpam Co. V. Keller, 85 Fed. Rep. 643; Collinsplfttt V. Finlayson, 88 Fed. Rep. ()!):5; N. K. Fairl)ank Co. v. R. W. Bell Mfj;. Co.. 23 C. C. A. .5.54; 77 Fed. Rep. 8(59-877; Hansen V. Siegel-Cooper Co. (1), 106 Fed. Rep. 690-6ni; Kostering v. Seattle Brewinp: & Malting Co., 116 Fed. Rep. 620; 54 C. C. A. 76. 9 — Anheuser-Busch B r e w i n ir Assn. V. Piza, 24 Fed. Rep. 149-1.")1. That injunction will he granted if the resemhlance is "calculated to deceive the unwary, the incautious, or the ignorant purchaser," see CaufTman v. Schuler, 123 Fed. Rep. 205. 10 — Patents. Designs and Trade- marks Act, 1883, Part TV. § 62. suh- sec. 3. 11— Act of 1905, § 1. 12— In re Rabone, Seb. 642: In rr .Telly, Son & Jones, 51 L. J. Cli. 639; In re Whiteley, 43 L. T. N. S. 627 ; Ainsworth v. Walmsley, L. R. 1 Eq. 518; Hall v. Barrows, 4 DiC. .T. & S. 150; Hart v. Colley, 7 R. P. C. 93 ;T. R. 44 Ch. D. 193; .")!> L. .T. Ch. 355; Cartmell, 1.54; .Tay V. Ladler, 6 R. P. C. 136; L. R. 40 Ch. D. 649; 60 L. T. 27; 37 W. § 1-!>1 llol'KIN-; ON TH \|)|.M \1JK>. :?(»S o\\ iii^ to \ho absriHM' nl' the exact classilicat idiis used in tin* Eiifrlish rcj^istrat ion practi(M>. it is prohaMy more exact t«> say that the marks must In- used ii|n(ii ^mods of so simihir fendant applied the same words to eiparettes. The conrt pave as its reason for enjnininp tlie dofondnnt that lie was holding out liis cipar- ottes as containinfT the ])laintiff's tobacco.''' And where the defendants were sellinpr shirts nnd(M- the name of "Wamycsta" and advortisinp tliom as made of "Wamycsta," they were enjoined froin iisinp: tliat designation at the instance of the AVamsntta ^lills, whose prodnct was kiiown as "Wamsutta" muslin, and was not nsed by defendants in the manufacture of their shirts." Where the complainants used the words "Collins & To." upon metal articles of their manufacture. ])ut did not manufacture shovels, the defendants were enjoined from placing those words on shovels, they having exported shovels so marked to Australia, where the complainants nuirketed a |)ortion of their output.'" In a recent case Judpe Bradford said: "Pale ale and half-and-half must, as apainst an infriufrer (»f a trademark for the former, be treated as malt li(juors sid)stantially similar to each other and belonpinp to the same class. Courts should not he astute to reeopnize in favor of an infringer fine distinctions ])etween different articles of merchandise of the same peneral luiture. and should resolve apainst the wronp-(h)ei' any fail- doubt whetlier the public nuiy or nuiy not be (h'ceived throuph the api»lication of the spurious symbol." "' Where the i)laintiff was the manu- l:. .'>(i."> , (artnull. 1st; Colmnn v. tmcro Co. v. Polncstk. 170 Fod. Rep. Crump. 7(t N. V. '.7.<: Hccht v. Tor 117. t.r. '.* Vac. ('. L. J. r.0!» ; S()ci6t6 14— Wnmsiitta Milln v. Allen, 12 Am.nymo v. nHXt«T, 14 Hlatchf. 2fil. Pliiln. rul^. F«*d. ("aw No. 800!l; AmoHkcu;; Mf>,'. 1.') — CoHinrt Cd. v. Olivor Amoa A Co. V. OarniT, .'».'> HarK. I'd; Cror^'o Sonn, IH Fed. IJi-p. r)fil. Soo also V. Smith, .'i2 Fed. Hi-p. fi.Kl; Air- In the Hami- rfTcct, F.trn v. Dunn, L. IlruHh Mf- ( .. V. Tha.v.r. H4 F.-.I. H. 1.'') A. C. 2.-.2. H«-p. 040. in— BanH. HntclilT A Clr.-ttcn 1.1 — Carroll v. Frtln-ih-r, Cox, (T.ld.l v. Frij:cnnpnn, t»fl Fed. Rep. Manual, 009; 1 F.d. Rrp. 08H. To 200 211 the »am<- •■'^•■■■* '-<•<• Amcrirnn To- 300 iNi"i;iN'c;i:.MKNT. f§120 fiictiii'cr of "OiiK'^a Oil,"' a liiiiiinMit oxtensivcly advertised as a rt'iiH'dy for skin and scalj) diseases, a defendant wlio b(';,'an to )nanufac'ture and sell a soap named "Ouic^^'a Oil Medicated Soap," advertised 1)\' defendanl as a remedy for diseases of the skin and sealp, an injunction was f^ranted the pJaintifT on tiie autiiority of the "Lone .Ia(d<" ease, Jiulfje lilanchard sayinj,' that "The adoption of the woi-ds 'Onief;a Oil' by de- fendant Avas ealenlated to deceive the ])nl)lie into the belief that ])laintiff's article was beinp: put up for sale in another form, at least into the belief that the soap was placed on the market by i)laintiff or by its consent." '" It is the necessary converse of the nde under considera- tion that it is no defense to an action for trademark infriufje- ment that the defendant used the mark in application to another class of merchandise before the i)laintiff bepan his use of the niaik. Thus whore a defendant had applied the word, "Epicure" to canned peaches and canned tomatoes, that fact did not avail as a defense, where the plaintiff was the first to apply the word to canned salmon, and the defend- ant afterwards bep:an to apply it to canned salmon. In his opinion, -Tudpre Coxe observes: "The roasoninj]: of some of the authorities would indicate that the defendants had a rijrht to use the brand in connection with other fruit and vegetables, analojrous to tomatoes and peaches, but to assert that they have the rijrht to use it on all canned goods is carrying the doctrine far beyond any reported case. Beer and nails do not belong to the same class of merchandise because both are sold in kegs." ^^ In a recent case in which the complainant's mark was ap- plied to baking soda and saleratus. and the defendant's to baking ])()\vdcr, Judge Baker lield the parties' goods to be in the same class l)ecause they were handled generally by the same class of dealers and jiurchased by the same class of customers; either is iiulifferently used to accomjilish the same object ; so that they come in direct competition with each 17 — Omopa Oil Co. v. Weachlrr. lion of the defendant must involve 71 N. Y. Supp. 0S3, 984. the same class of poods as those 18_C,eorpe v. Smith, r.2 Fed. (.f the plaintifT. Basket Stores v. Rep. 830-832. The unfair competi- Allen (Xeb.), i:)5 N. W. Rep. 803. § l.JO) IKU'KINS DN 'n(.Vl>K.M \I{KS. ItlH other in sale aiul use. In that case tlic vu\o is aiuinunct'd that "froods art' in tlic sanif (lass whiMiovcr the iiso of a •>'iv(Mi trademark or syinhol on hoth woiiltl ('iial)lo an nnsi-rup- ulons dealer readily to paliu ofT on the nnswspectintr i)nr- ehaser the ^'o«»ds df the infritifrei- as the ;roods made by the owner of the ti'adennirk, or with his anth(»rity and consent." '" In the applieation of the rnle. it has heen held that the iise of a red triiMi^rle on la^rer lieer did not infrinj^e the same devierf' used hs a trademark for ale.-" It has heen held in the patent ofliee thai suspenders and hose-supporters nvc not yroods of the same descriptive prop- erties,-"" § 130. The value of proof of fraudulent intent. — So muoli is saitl of fraudulent intent in the deeisions that it is proper to discuss it in this place, in its relation to infrinpemeiit. As we have seen, eipiity will restrain the use of the infriiip- iu}r mark without re:.; !».-• Fc.l. Rep. ru». Se." alw» Koho v. LoftuH. 47 KKifi; HfTirmin^' Bush v. Henry Zclt- L. J. Cli. rutt; .Millin^rton v. Fox, n.r Bnw. ( <.., H7 1".<1. K.|>. 4(5«. ."{ Myhie * Cr. ."{.{S . Wr.-d v. Pi-tor- 20a— Frnrik v. Macwilliam, 117 wm, 12 AMi. I'r. N. S. 17«. (»fT. (Jttz. 1 !(•».'». 2.1 — Kdc'lHttii V. F.clclrttcn, auprn. 21 — P:di-lHt<-n V. Kd<'lHt«ii, 1 D.C. 24— Fuher v. I)'UUi»«I'K1N< ON TKAPr.M AKKS. ',\\'2 plaoc (»f biisiiioss into llu' samo lonility as tlic plaintiff,^' or is detilin^ in otlicr frauduloiil fjoods.-'- Tho uso and t'inwlation <>f rt'inoval notices, "so closely sim- ilar as to Ite a tlecej)tive iiiiitatiun (of plaintifT's stationery), and • • • so ambifruons in ])lirasintr as to lead the un- wary to believe that reference was made to the plaintiff, and not to the defendant, is nnfair competition.*'-'-'" The nse l»y a defendant of the words "sole a^'cnt," may bo (•onsidcred as an evidence of fraud, where no atrency exists, }«nd there is similarity of dre.ss.'''' A curious insteuec of facts retrarded as indicia of fraud is to be found in a case whore a i)laintiff whose name, origi- nally "Dr. J. W. Trn.st." had been chanf-ed to "Dr. T. F. Gouraud." was the manufacturer of a cosmetic styled "Gou- raud's Oriental Cream," and the defendants, his sons, who had retained the name Trust, engaged in the Siilc of a cos- metic which they named "Creme Orientale. by Dr. T. F. Gou- raud 's Sons;" the co\irt holding from these facts that the state- ment of the relationship, thoiigh truthful, was made with fraudulent intent.-" The use on defendant's label of fictitious medals of award lias been treated as evidence of fratuhdent intent.^'' As most of these badges of fraud have been referred to by the courts because of their determiidng influence in cases of nnfair competition, we will consider them at length in that .'{1 — Kl^'iii Nut. Watch tO. v. :12— C'lins. E. Ilin'S C"o. v. Con- Illinois \Vnt

  • . p. 18.'i; Seh. 42. See alrto to Citing; and following,' DeYoun^rs v. Kame cfTfct, I>of v. Haley. 21 .Iiin^'. 27 X. Y. Supp. .370; 7 Mi«o. I-. T. N. S. .140; 18 \V. U. Hep. .lO; .lohnson v. Hitchcock, .3 181; L. R. .'> CTi. D. l.ri: 39 L. .1. X. Y. .Supp. 080. Ch. 284; 22 L. T. X. S. 2.'il ; 18 W. .3.3— National Water Co. v. n. 242; Viano v. Haccij.'alup.., 183 Hertz. 177 Fed. H.p. 007. Mhkh. 100; 07 X. K. Kep. 041; 34 — Cnuraud v Trust. 3 Hun, Cliurch V. KreKn.r. 49 X. Y. .Sup. 027; Seh. 400. 742; Internaii..nul Society v. In- 3.')— Hohn A Hynie Mf>,'. Co. v. ternational Society, .M) X. Y. Supji. JonaHch. tW) X. Y. Sup. 555. 78.-). 313 INFRINGEMENT. [§132 conueetioii. Tiiosc we have iiicrit ioiicd ai'c illustrative, how- ever, of the class of facts pn-t im-iit to he shown in cases of technical trademark infrinj;enient, and to prove which is impor- tant for the reasons and purposes ahove referred to. § 132. Infringing by refilling trademarked packagea.— Tiicre is no doul)t tiiat one who furnishes liquors (or any other class of ^oods) witii the expressed j)urpose that the goods so sold are to he used in rcfillinj? genuine packapes whose original contents liave been removed will be dealt with as an infringer and enjoined in equity.^'"' The refilling of gen- uine packages will be restrained,"*' even where the package, a bottle bearing a name blown in the glass, is used for a sim- ilar article, in connection with a label not resembling that borne by it originally. ^^ Injunction will issue even where the refilling was done at the request of a customer.'''^ Judge Thayer has enjoined a defendant from offering for sale an imitation of Ilostetter's Bitters in bulk with advice to cus- tomers to refill bottles originally containing the genuine com- pound, with the spurious article.^"' In this class of cases "the 30— llostcttor Co. V. BniPfrge- man-Reinart Distillinj; Co. 4G Fed. Rep. 188; Cox, Manual, 729; Hos- tetter Co. v. Wm. Schneider Co., 107 Fed. Rep. 705; Hostetter Co. V. Conron, 111 Fed. Rep. 737; Samuel Bros. & Co. v. Hostetter Co., 55 C. C. A. Ill; 118 Fed. Rep. 257; Hostetter Co. v. Gallagher Stores, 142 Fed. Rep. 208. Com- pare Hostetter v. Fries, 17 Fed. Rep. 620, in which defendants compounded a sul)stance to he used in makini:.M VUKS. :U4 burden is stroiij;ly upon tlu* coiiiplaiiijitil to |>r()V(> fi-ainl \n- a fair propoiuK'raiu'c of ovidoiu-c. "" " The iiijuiu'tion will not ho donicd because of the defeiMhiiit eoverinp the trademarks of the orifriiial container w ith a jiapcr label. ^■- The burden is n|)on llic defendant who has undertaken to retill the plaintiffs ti-adcnuirked containers to "completely and permanently ol)literate and remove" the trademark from the container.^-' § 133. Packages distinguished from their contents. — Whero articles are sold to the consumer only in packa<;es of course the marks upon the packages strike the eye of the consumer before those on the articles, and this fact may often be of controllinfr importance in cases of unfair eom|)etition,'*^ Thus. Judpe Richards has said, in a case of this character "it does not ajipear that the defendant attempted to deceive the j)ublic by jjalmiufr off its matches as those of the complain- ant. There was no simulation of jiaekapres. The packages plainly indicate their orinr«d niid wdd an oxtract. ;,'ivin^' instructinnw to their customers for making; "IIost<'tter*s Bitters" from the ex- traet. Thi- nih- stated in tiie text is f-I>ite Co. V. Avery Lijjhtinp Co., 101 Fed. Hep. 04S, 0.->0. 0.'>2; Prcflt- O-Lite Co. V. Davis. 200 Fed. Rep. 017. 022, 024; PrestO-Lito Co. v. H(.;ren. 200 Fed. Hep. 01.'.. 010; Prest-lVLite Co. v. Post 4 Lester Co., 103 Fed Hep. 03, 04. 44— Ileide v. Wallace & Co., 120 Fed. Hep. 040. O.'.O ( wliere li(|uoricc jiastillis were sold in l.oxoa) ; KnickerLoeker Clioeolate Co. v. Crinin^', 144 F.d. Hep. 310 (whore. (lioc<.late ennfi ef inns were so sold). 4.-.- Diamond Mateli C«». v. Sajri- naw Match Co.. 74 C. C. A. :.!• ; 142 F.<1. Hep. 720. 730. 315 INKIJINCKMKNT. [§134 \\\\\ he gr-aiilf(l cvcii llioiit^'li llic coiitciits arr uiioljjfcl ion- able. "' § 134. Infringement by refitting and reselling worn trade- marked articles.'^ — Akin in icliliint; li-adcniai-kcd packa^jcs are cases where, i)arts ol' u tradi-niafkcil article liavinian Enjr. Works v. Mallory, 7r» New Lamp Co., 128 Fed. Rep. ir)4: Or. r)42: 147 Pac. Rep. r)42. General Electric Co. v. Ro-Xew ")] — I)cerin<^ Harvester Co. v. Lamp Co., 121 Fed. Rep. lf)4. Wliitman. 33 C. C. A. 558; 91 Fed. 4fl — Mapee Furnace Co. v. Le- Rep. 370. Barron, 127 Mass. 115. 52 — Xeostyle Mfg. Co. v. P^llam's 50— Bender v. Enterprise Mfg. Duplicator Co., 21 R. P. C. 185. §135] HOPKINS ON nCADK.MAKKS. '.]}{] tiffs to dosi^riiatt' a liifrlicr ^rrailr of l)raii(ly sold by thfin in bottles only. The roiirt, by Molcsworth. .1.. said: "I think a new featnrt' whii-li has nut Itctii prtvsont in any otluT case, and is. theroforo. not tonchnl by the lan^Miaj:*' of the other cases, is one which 1 niiurchasinfr goods in bulk from him can therein- acfpiire the rijrht to pack or bottle sueh poods uncb^r the trademark of th(» vendor used oidy njion his |)a(dpared by himself on smaller packapes for the retail trade."'' but he is at liberty to .so mark them as to truthfully indicate the manufaeturer.'"'"' Where bulk poods were sold without limitation as to the man- ner in whieh they were to be re-sold, the effeet of the sale was held to be "t(» invest the defendants (vendees) with the .l.l — ItcnncsHv V. Wliitc. (\ W. W. mimrml milicatiii^' lumtlicr ^/radc A- A'H. E<|. 2K5-221: Si"l>. n.V). Sec of pj-n made l>y tlif siinif miunifnc hImi to Hiim.' <(Tc(t HcnnoHHy v. tun-r. Clillott v. Kctllo. .1 Diitr. Hojfan. « \V. \V. A A'B. Eq. 22.'>; 024; Cox. I4S. S«-l.. nr>l; KraiiHH V. .lo«. R. IVt'- r)'>— Tnft. .1.. in KnniwH v. .In«. H. I.!«h' SonM Co.. TiH Fed. Rep. riRfi. P.-oldcB* Sons Co., .'.S F.-d. Rep. .'i4 — S«f tlic raw in \v)iich a per- ."»S."»-r)t(2. m>n |iiircliH«int' |H-nM fr<»ni n inanu- TiO — RtiHMin ('('. ('. C. A. 500; Cox. :Manual. 074. Tlio New York 133 Fed. Rep. .")1S. Court of Appeals, treating: this r>8— Chas. E. Hires Co. v. Xepa- case as purely a technical trade- pas. 180 Fed. Rep. n.V2. mark case, reversed it in SO X. Y. .')0 — A. C. Spaldin-r & Bros. v. 202. If there had heen consid<>red Carnage. Etd., :U R. P. C. 12.'). 1:50. by the appellate court the doctrines §13(5) IIOI'KINS ON TliAMK.NJAKKS. .{Ig jxM-fonns tin* actual siihstiliit ion, there is no (jucstion that lie will iiivariahly ln' ciijoiiicd from rt'itftitioiis of Jiis otTt'tisc."- Thc law as t«) suhstitiitioii is adinirahly cinhraccd in tlio lanJrua^'l' of rhid^rc Laft»nilH': "A court of ('(|uit y will not allow a man to jialni off his jroods as those of another, whether his misrepresentations are made hy word of mouth, or more subtly, by simulatiu}; the eolloeati2.'», ami tn tin- liii-ibiiiii (if tlu' lower f«»urt would same circct sfc j-Mison Mf;;. Co. v. Iiavc Im*<-ii alllrint'd. Taiiidstifks- (Iladstoin-. — N. .1. Kq. — ; .")S Atl. falirikn Aktii-I>ida;:rt Vulcan v. My- Kcp. .'ini, not oflirially reported. cTH. 11 N. Y. Slip. (!«!.■{; .\very v. (i t— HoHtetti-r Co. v. N'an Vor>t. Meikle. HI Ky. 7.'.; Cox. Manual. r.2 Fed. !{ep. Uno. 08(1. and eawH cited elsewhere in 0') — Welter Medieal Tea Co. v. tluH fliapter. KirHistein, lol Fed. I{ep. .".Sn. (J2— Snxleliner v. F-inner A Men- iW — Lavanlmr;,' v. I'feilTer, 'rl >.". delw.n Co.. 8S Fell. !{ep. (il-7(); Y. Sujip. SOl. Miinro V. Smith, l.'t .\. Y. Snp. 708; (17— I.avanhur;: v. I'feilTer. (iC. \. \. K. Fairliank Co. v. Dunn. 120 Y. Siipp. :{!l. Fi-il. Itep. 227; HarneM v. I'ieree, (18 — I.ampiTt v. .Iiid^^'e A Onln'i 104 Fed. iJep. 21M. I)ni;r C<>.. 2:i8 Mo. 4(»!t : 111 S W 0.1 — KnterpriH4> Mf;;. Co. v. Lan- Hep. inn.'t; reverHin;.' I.uinpert v. diTH, Frarv A Clark, or. C. C. A. .Iiidfre & I).d|di Drn-.' Co., lift Mo. r»87: 131 Fid. Hf-p. 40. 41; alTirm- Aj.p. Oft.'J, 000; 100 S. \V. I?<«p. fl.'iO. 31D INFUIN(ii;MF.NT. [§137 § 137. The use of misleading signs and circulars. — Tlic use of niislcadiii^' business si},Mis will he restrained in e(juity, Avlietlier or not sueli si^'iis are fixed before a particular j)lueo of business, or ai-e disti'ibiited tlirou^'li the trade. The j^eneral rule has been thus stated by tiie Chaneellor of r]>i)er Canada in a ease invoivinj; the use of si<;ns beariuf^ words "The Golden Lion" used upon a. dry poods establishment: "Where it is clear to the court that the defendant himself intended an advantage liy the use of a pai-ticular sifrn or mark in use l)y aiiotluM-. and Ix'lieves lie has obtained it. or-, in other -words, tiiat the defendant himself thoujrht the use of it was calcu- lated to advertise him at the expense^ of the plaintiff, and this was his object in usin^ it, and w Iicre such has been the effect of the user, I think the court should say to him 'Remove that silaintifl"s beer was beinfj sold at the defeiulant's place of business? Was the imitation of the sijrn close enough to bring about such a deception?"'' The more usual cases are those of signs bearing similar tradenames exhibited on competing stores in the same vicin- ity, in which tlie sign of the later comer is enjoined if eal- cidated to mislea. 271; r,:i Pac. Hip. 4«0; Uicnrd v. 7.">— Cady v. Schnltz, 10 H. T. 193; CaU.n Colli-;.'.- C... (Minn.), H2 N. ri2 Atl. Hep. 015; nuke v. Cleaver. \V. Hi-p. JtriH. 10 Tex. Civ. App. 21H; 40 S. \V. 7.'»— Hrown v. HraunHtiin. 8.{ N. Hep. 1128. Y. Sufifi. KtOC; \'an Stan's Stratenii 70- Halstenil v. Houston, 111 Ci, v \'iin Stun. 2(»!i Pa .'.('.4, .'.H Afl F.cl. Hep. 'Mn. 921 INFRINGEMENT. § l.'}8 Relief 1)y preliiiiinai'V injunction lias been diMiicd uinTe defendant resold inadiiiies of |)Iaintift"s nuirnifaclnre, adver- tising,'' tlicin as "('lieap'" rnacliincs.' ' § 138. Infringement by a non-identical word or mark. — The fjeneral r\de is that th(>re may be infrinf,'enient even in the absenee of exaet similarity between the marks."" In 1866 Lord Cranworth said in a leading case: "If the goods of a maiiufaeturer have, from the mark or device he has used, become known in the market ])y a pai-ticnlar name. I think that the adojjtion by a rival trader of any mark Avhieh Avill canse his proods to bear the same name in the market may be as mneh a violation of the riprhts of that rival as the aetnal copy of his device.""" This dictum was elicited in a ease where the plaintiff sold wines in casks stamped with the device of a crown and an eagle, and the initials "B. S. " on the head of the cask, and a crown, the word "Seixo" and a date at the bung hole, from which the wine had acquired the name "Crown Seixo;" while the defendants sold wine in casks stamped on the head and at the bung hole with the device of a crown, the initials "C. B.," the words "Seixo 77 — Oliver Typowritcr Co. v. American Writing Mach. Co., lofi Fed. Rep. 177. 78— Ligpett & Myer Tobacco Co. V. Hynes, 20 Fed. Rep. 883. "What degree of reaemhlance is necessary is, from tlie nature of tliinjis, a matter incapable of di'finition a priori. All tiiat courts of justice can do is to say that no trader can adopt a trademark so resemb- ling that of a rival as that ordin- ary purchasers, purchasing with ordinary caution, are likely to be misled." Lord Cranworth in Seixo V. Provezondc, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 192. 70 — Seixo V. Prove/,endi>, supra ; 12 .Tiir. X. S. 21.-); 14 L. T. X. S. 314; 14 W. R. 3.-)7; Seb. 256. The doctrine of the leading case applies to all cases where the goods of a |)articular dealer or manufacturer have become known l)y a name derived from his trade- mark. Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co. v. Metcalf, L. R. 31 Ch. D. 4r)4; ;->;-) L. .J. Ch. 463; 34 W. R. 34o; 3 R. P. C. 28; Cartmell. 48; In re Speer's Trademark, 4 R. P. C. r)21: -).-) L. T. X. S. 880; Cartmell, 317; In re Baschiera's Trademark, 33 S. J. 469; In re La Soci6t6 Anonyme des Verreries de I'Estoile, 10 R. P. C. 436; L. R. (1894) 1 Ch. D. 61; 11 R. P. C. 142; Wilkinson v. CrifTith, 8 R. P. C. 370; Cart- mell, 344; Morgan Envelope Co. v. Walton, 82 Fed. Rep. 469; 81 OfT. Caz. 1615; Johnson & .Johnson v. Bauer & Black, 27 C. C. A. 374; 82 Fed. Rep. 662 ; Kann v. Diamond Steel Co., 89 Fed. Rep. 706. § 138] IIOPKIN'S ON TKADKMARKS. ;V22 de Cima.'" ami fij^ures "1861. " Tlic dcfciulants wore iMijttincd notwithstaiulinp the t'ait that llic marks were not similar. Mik-itaiiKS. — AVhoro a commercial article lias, fortuitously or otherwise, accpiireil a nick-name by which it is known and called for. that nick name will he protected in e(|uity. Not- withstanding: its proper desi-rnat ion, "still if for some rea- son the general public has ^^iven to the |iroduct another and different name, hy which it alone is known t<> the trade, the ajipellant (plaintiff) becomes entitled to protection by injunc- tion atrainst one who thereafter endeavors throu^di tiie adop- tion of such term as the public employs as synonymous for or as a secondary desi^Miation of such product."^" The thing suggesting the nick-name need not be identif-al with plain- tiff's mark. I'nder this rule, jilaintiffs who made a certain beer to which they applied the device of a bull-dog's head were granted an injunction against the use by comi>eting dealers of a label similar in .shape to the plaintiff's and bearing a terrier's head. There was no resemblance between the labels beyond the similarity in shape, but the plaintiffs' beer had come to be known as "Dog's Head Beer." and the use of a dog's head upon similar merchandise by the defendants was manifestly for the purpose of passing off their beer as being the i)lain- tiffs'.*" It is self-evident that a trademark may be infringed by a mark entirely different, but suggesting to (Mistomers and the public the same word or idea. Thus when r.n English house had used in India a trademark for yarn whicli had led the natives to call for it as "Bhe Ilathi" fmeaning "Two Elephant") yarn, a competing firm was enjoined from export- ing yarn to India under a trademarlc of wliich the principal feature was the representation of two elephants. ^^ Qy^ t}ie same reasoning the word "Sportsman's" accompanied by a picture of two mounted huntsmen, tised as a trademark for cherry brandy, was held to be infringed by the picture of a huntsman standing beside his horse, and the words "Ilunts- RO — Cnrland, J., in Dcnvt-r Ch L. T. Co. V. Lillfv. 133 C. C. A. 73; 21fi N. S. M; Cox. Mnnnal. \o. 008. Fed. Rep. 809. 82 — Orr Ewinj,' * Co. v. .TohnRton 4 Co., 40 L. T. N. S. 307 ; S.'l). 046. 32:i INKKINGKMKNT. §i:}8 nians CluMTy liraiuly,"' w lici-c the pi-oof ulinndr sliowod that the phiiiitifl's' licjiior had hccoMic kiinuii to the puhlif as "The Hunter's Cherry Biandy. " ''•• Jud^e Sanlxn-ii has well said that "every suit of this char- acter is founded on the fact that the aetion, or the projjosed action, of the defendant has deceived, or is calculated to deceive, ordinary j)urchasers buyinf? with usual care, so that they have ])ur('hased, or will probably purchase, the poods of the defendant under the mistaken belief that they are those of the complainant."'*^ So that each case must turn upon the peculiar facts involved. Thus where a plaintiff had for some time mamifactured tennis racquets uniformly stamped at a particular place upon the handle with the words "The Demon," and the defendant began to manufacture and sell racquets of a similar desifrn, stamped, in the correspond- ing ])lace upon the handle, with the word "Demotic," the; use of the Avord "Demotic" Avas restrained.*^ So the word "Curative," applied to soap, has been held to infringe the word "Cuticura," similarly api)lied;'^" and a red Greek cross has been held to be infringed by a maltese cross with a red center, each being used as a mark upon medicinal plasters,**" 8.3 — In re Barker's Trademark, 53 L. T. X. S. 23; Cartmell, 72. Simi- lar cases are Barlow v. Johnson, 7 R. P. C. 395; Cartmell. 73; Upper Assam Tea Co. v. IlerlK-rt, 7 R. P. C. 183; Cartmell, 333; In re Worth- ington's Trademark, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 8; 49 L. J. Ch. G46; 42 L. T. X. S. 563; 28 W. R. 747; Cartmell, 351 ; Jerome v. Johnson, 59 X. Y. Supp. 859. 84 — Kann v. Diamond Steel Co., 89 Fed. Rep. 706. 85 — Slazenger v. Feltham. 6 R. P. C. 531; Cartmell. 310. Thus 86 — Potter Drug & Chemical Corp. V. Miller, 75 Fed. Rep. 656. 87 — .Johnson & Johnson v. Bauer & Black, 27 C. C. A. 374; 82 Fed. Rep. 662 ; reversinf^ same case, 79 Fed. Rep. 954. In the opinion Judpe Jenkins said: "It sufficiently appeared by the testimony that the goods of the appellant have come to be known, and are off'ered, ordered and sold, as 'Red Cross Plasters;' and we can not but think that tlie maltese cross adopted l>.v the appellee, in so far as it con- tains a red circle, has a tendency where an anchor had been regis- to promote confusion, and will in- tered in Englard as an umbrella trademark, the word "Ancross" for umbrellas was refused registration. In re Tliewlis & Blakey's Trade- mark. 10 R. P. C. 369. terfere with the leiritimate trade of the appellant. ♦ • ♦ The red cross speaks to the eye, and tlie article being known by that d(^sigiiation speaks also to the ear by that name." § 138] HOPKINS ON TK ADKM AUKS. :{24 'I'lu' (U'frrt'o of I't'sciublancf Ix'twi'di pictorial marks iice- ossury to establish infriiipeinciit is illustrated by a lasc in whith tlio ])i('tur(* of a roostor slaiulin^; on the body of his (U'ad adversary was held to infriii^re a representation nf a ehieken eoek standing' under llic bi-ancli of an nlive tree.'''* Other instanees in which the i-ourts have declared a word or words used as a trademark to be infriiifred by a different word or words will be found instructive. V\)V the conven- ience of the reader they are tabulated in alphabetical order. The Trndimark or Tradename. "Al)aens.-" "Alba." ^'American CJirl." "Anvil." *' ApoUinaris. " "Auto." ••Beaded." "Black Diamond." " Bovilene." "Burp:ess. " "Canadian ("lub Whis- key." ' ' Cascarets. ' ' 8S — C'usimano & Co. v. Olivo Oil Imp. Co., :J8 So. 1I.|). iuo ; 114 La. 312. H9_K.ufT«I & Khwt ("o. v. n. R. Crocker Co.. UK I'Vd. R«'p. 1R7. 90— /fci21. OH — liur^eHH \. Hills, 2t> Riavan, 244. 00— Walk. T V. MikoluH. 70 F.d. Rep. 0.">."i: Hiram Walker &. Sohh V. Hoekstaeder. S.) Fed. Rep. 776. 1 — SU'rIinf; Remedy Co. v. Corey, 110 Fed. Rep. 372. :}25 IM-IUNUEMENT. [§138 The Tnidonark or Tiadoianu. "Cascarets." "Cashmere Bouquet." "Celluloid." "Ceresota." "Ceresota." "Chartronso." "Chatterbox." "Clark's O. N. T." "Coeoaine." "Cocoatiiia." "Coe's Superphosphate of Lime." "Corona." "Cottolene." "Cottolene." "Creamalt." "Cupola." "Cyclops Machine Works." "Demon." 2 — Still in-,' Ki-nu'dy Co. v. Sper- mine Renn'fly Co., 50 C. C. A. Gi)l ; 112 Fed. Hep. 1000. 3_Colgate v. Adams, 88 Fed. Rep. son. 4_Ct.llul<)id yU{r. Co. V. Cellon- ite Mffi. Co., ^^•2 Fed. Rep. 04. ;") — Xortinvcsteni Consol. ilill Co. V. Wm. Cullalian & Son, 177 Fed. Rep. 78(!. G — Northwestern Consl. Mill Co. V. Mauser & Cressman, 162 Fed. Rep. 1004. 7 — A. Bauer Co. v. Order of Carthusian Monks, oG C. C. A. 484; 120 Fed. Rep. 78, 80. 8— Kstes V. Leslie, 20 Fed. Rep. 91. 9 — Clark Thread Co. v. Armi- tago. 21 C. C. A. 178; 74 Fed. Rep. 936; affirming Clark Thread Co. v. Armitage, 67 Fed. Rep. 896. Ihhl If) Ik infrln(j(d hij. "Castorcts. " - "Violets of Cashmere."'* "Cellonito."^ "Certosa."-' "Cressota."" "Chasseurs.""^ "Chatterbook."« "Clark's N. E. W."" "Cocoine."!"" "Cocaotine."'! "Andrew Coe's Superphos- ])hate of Lime." '^ "Corinth." '•' "Cottoleo."^^ "Chefolene."!-"' "Crown Malt.">" "Composite." >' "Cyclops Iron Work.s." 's "Demotic." '» 10— Rurnctt v. Phalon, Bos. 102. 11 — Sc'liwi'it/.er v. Atkins. 'M h. J. Ch. 847. 12— Coe V. IJradloy, Fed. Case No. 2941; 9 OIT. C.az. 'Al. 1.3— K.ufTel & lesser Co. v. H. S. Crocker Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 187. 14 — X. K. Fairhank Co. v. Cen- tral Lard Co., 64 Fed. Rep. 1:5:3. If) — X. K. Fairliank Co. \. Ogden Packing Co., 220 Fed. Rep. 1002. 16— George G. Fox Co. v. Glynn, 191 Mass. .344; 78 X. E. Rep. 89. 17— KeufTel & Esser Co. v. II. S. Crocker Co., supra. IS — Hainque v. Cyclops Iron Works. 1.3G Calif. 3.'); 68 Pac. Rep. 1014. 19— Slazenger v. Feltham, G R. P. C. 531. § 138] IHtl'Kl.N;? ON TUAPK.MAHKS. ;{2G The Tradrmarh or Trmh nnmr. " I)»»rii'. ' "l)»'rl>y." "Dr. Williimis' Pink Pills for Pair Pcuplc.' " "Duplox." " Ecctiioiuy. ' "K^rypliaii Dritios. " " Elaslii' Soam." "HI Dcstino." ••Electro-Silicon." "Every Day." "E.xcdsior. " "Flor (Ic Marfraretta. " "Genuine Durham Sniokinjr Tobacco," with the pic- ture of a hull. "German." "(Jermau Household Dyes." "Gernua." 2l>— K.-nir«-l & Kswr Co. v. TT. -S. CnK-kiT Co., IIH Fid. Ri'|>. 1S7. 21— DtThy Dry Pluto Co. v. INil lard, 2 Tinvs L. U. 27(i. 22— Dr. Williams Mod. Co. v. Totliill, Caix- (;o.id llojio. 2{» S. C. n. 4H.\; Dr. Williams M.d. Co. v. Ali'.xaruirr, Ca|>c (loml Hope, 27 S. c. n. .-)Kn. 2;{— KoufT.l & Kss^r Co. v. II. S. Crofkor Co., supra. 24— Ibid. 2.') — AnarjivroM v. i;;;v|itiaM Am- aitiH Cipin-tto Co., . :J2— Rlackwell V. Armi.stead, 3 llii<:lie8. 1U:1; Fed. Case No. 1,474. :{:»— Walter Baker & Co. v. Raker, 77 Fed. Rep. IMI. :M — Oppermaim v. Watt-rman, 94 Wis. nH.-J; 00 N. W. Rep. '•(!!>. :i.'.— Sperry v. Percivnl Milling Co., HI Cal. 2:.2. INFRINGEMENT. f§i:J8 Tlic Trademark or 'I' nidi name. "Gold Dust." "Golden Crown." "Gothic." "Guinness." "IIonnita}?o." "Holeproof." "Homo." "Home Hrand." "H(UU'ynio()M." "Hostetter Bitters." "Hostctter & Smith." "Humphrey's Homeoi)athic Specifics." "Iron Ox." "Junket Tablets." "Keepclean. " "Ky's Criterion." "LaCarolina." Jit Id to he InfriiKjrd by. "Gold Drop." a" "Golden Chain."" "Ionic."''** "Genuine."''" "Heritage."^'' "No-hole."'" "Homo Delight." -"s "Home Comfort." ••■« " Honeyeond)." '^ "Host-Style Bitters." »' "Holstoter & Smyte."^" "Reeves' Imi)orted Homeo- pathic Specifics."^" "Iron Oxide." ■«« "Junket Capsules." •*» "Sta-Klean."-'" "Ky's Credential." 51 "LaCoraliua."^^ 30— X. K. Fairhank Co. v. Luck- c-1, Kinj; & Cak»' Soap Co., 42 C. C. A. 37(5; 102 Ftd. Rop. .327; revers- ing 8. c, 88 Fed. Rt'p. (504. 37 — Parlctt v. (;u;i;.'i'iih(>imcr. 07 Md. r)42; 10 Atl. Rep. SI. :?S— KeufVel cS; ICsser Co. v. H. S. Crocker Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 187. 30 — Guinness v. Heap, Seb. 017. 40— W. A. Gaines & Co. v. Tur- ner-Looker Co., 123 C. C. A. 70; 204 Fed. Rep. ;")."):]. 41 — Holeproof Hosiery Co. v. Fitts, 107 Fed. Rep. 378. 42 — New Home Sewing Machine Co. V. Rl()oinin;,'(lale, ')!• Fed. Rej). 284. 43 — Griggs, Cooper & Co. v. Erie Preserving Co.. 131 Fed. Rep. 3r)9. 44 — Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. v. Wiitlieii, 110 Fed. Rep. G41-C44. 4-)— Hostetter v. Becker, 73 Fed. Rep. 207. 46— Hostetter v. Vowinkle, 1 Dill. 329; Fed. Case No. 6714. 47 — Humphreys' Specific Med. Co. V. Wen/, 14 Fed. Rep. 2.")0-2.)3. 48 — Iron Ox. Co. v. Co-op. Socie- ty, 24 R. P. C. 42."); same v. Leeds, 24 R. P. C. 434. 40 — Hansen v. Siegel-Cooper Co. (2), 100 Fed. Rep. 001. 50— Florence ]SIfg. Co. v. .T. C. Dowd & Co., 178 Fed. Rep. 73; lol C. C. A. SGo; reversing Florence Mfg. Co. V. J. C. Dowd & Co., 171 Fed. Rep. 122. 51 — Kentucky Di.stiHerits & Warehouse Co. v. Wathen, 110 Frd. Rep. 041-044. 52 — Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols, ir5 Fed. Rep. 302. §138J HOPKINS UN TKAPKM VHK.S. 328 The Irailcmark ur Truth lunno. **LiU'to-Pcptinc, " "Laiullorils" Pnilcctivt' Hii- roau. "Lcopoldshall." *'Lij;htiin|,' Hay Knives." "Limctta." "Listerine." "Little Shop." "Maizena." "Manufaotuivrs' Outlet Co." ":\Iarylana ("lub Rye." "Mechanics' Store." "Melhvood." "Miller's Chicken Cock Whiskey. " "Momaja." .'i.'J — Ciinirirk v. Morson, L. .1. N. of C. (1S77I. p. 71. 54 — K«J— Hiram Holt Co. v. Wads- wortli, 41 IVd. H.'p. 34. r}7 — Orcwry Si Son v. Wood, 127 Fed. R.p. 887. 58 — LamlM-rt I'liarmui-al Cd. v. KaliHh Pliarmacy, 211) F«d. H.p. 323. .IJ) — Lamlx-rt I'harmacal Co. v. B«dton i ht-m. Corp., 2i;t I'.d. IUik 325. Ill Id to b< infrincjcd by. Lattopepsine, " ''•* "Landlords' Protective De- partment." ''* " Leopoldsalt." ''^ "Lif^htninfT Pattern Hay Knives.'' •'" "Limette," ''" "Listerseptinc," ''" and " Listojjen." ''•* "Little Anticjne Shop.""* " .Mai/.hai-ina." '"'* "Taunton Oiillet Co.""^ "Maryland dockey Club Rye."''-' "Meehanical Store." "< "Mill Wood."'''^ "Miller's Game Cock Rye. ' ' "'•' "Mo Java." '•' (iO — Crawford v. Lans. (50 N. Y. Supp. 387. <>1 — (Hen Covf Mf;;. Co. v. Lu- d.diiiL'. 22 K.mI. K..p. S23; 23 Blatchf. 4»i. 62 — Samwids v. Spit/rr, 177 Mas.^. 22(1; 58 N. K. Rep. U03. U3— Calm v. Gottsihulk, 2 N. Y. Su|)j). 13. 04— WfinHtock. I.ul.in A Co. V. Marks. 10!) Cal. 520. 0.'>^Mi'll\voor v. Morso, 14 R. I. 153. 69— Proctor v. McBride, Fed. Case No. 11441. 70— Moxio Nerve Food Co. v. Beach, 33 Fed. Rep. 248. 71 — Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Haunil.acli, 32 Fed. Rep. 20"). 72— Seliendle v. Silver, 70 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 330; 18 N. Y. Supp. 1. 73— Keuffel & Esser Co. v. H. S. Crocker Co.. 118 Fed. Rep. 187. 74 — Daniel O'Donnell v. Riscal Mfp. Co., 228 Fed. Rep. 127. 130. 75— W. A. Caines & Co. v. Leslie, 54 N. Y. Supp. 421: 2.'. :\Iise. Rep. 20. 76— Bluthenthal v. Molilmann. 48 Fla. 321; 42 So. Rep. 1046; 38 So. Rop. 700. 77 — Swift & Co. V. Brenner, 125 Fed. Rep. 826. 78— Omo Mf<,'. Co. v. Mystic Rub- ber Co., 225 Fed. Rep. 92. 79 — Janney v. Pan-Coast Yenti- lator & Mf^. Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 121. 80— Keuffel & Fsser Co. v. H. S. Crocker Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 187. 81— M. J. Breitenbach Co. v. Spangenberji, 131 Fed. Rep. 160. 82 — Van Horn v. Coopan, 52 N. J. Eq. 380; 28 Atl. Rep. 788. S:{_ni,.r V. Abrahams, 82 N. Y. .-)10. 84 — Ft. Stanwix Canninj: Co. v. Wni. MeKinley Canning Co., 63 N. Y. Supp. 704. §138] HOPKINS ON TK \1>K.MAKKS. 330 The Trademark or Tradt natnr. "Robert's Parabola Gold- Ituniislu'd Sliarps." ■ l\(»}rers. " "Roof Leak." "Roy Watch-Case Co." " Riibborset." "Ku-bor-oid." "Sanitas." "Sapolio." "Sapolio. " "Sapolio." "Savonol." "Sawyer's Crystal Blue and Safety Box." "Seccotine. " "Shawknit." 85 — Rolwrts V. Sluldon, 8 Bias. 3fl8; Fed. Case No. 11916. 80 — Intrrnationnl Silver Co. v. Kodprs Hn.s. Cutlery Co., 136 Fed. Rep. 1019. 1021. 87 — Klliott Varnish Co. v. Sears, RfH-l.uck & Co., 221 Fed. R.p. 797 ; n-versi'd 232 PVd. Rep. 588. 88 — Roy U'atoh-CaBc Co. v. Camm- Roy Wateh-Case Co., .''.9 X. Y. Supp. 979. 89— Kiil.her & Celluldid H. T. Co. V. RiiM.erHoiiiKl Hnisli Co.. 81 \. .1. P>|. 419; H8 .\tl. Hep. 210; .\nn. Cax. 1915U, 3(!.^); aflirmed, 81 N. J. Kq. 519; 88 Atl. Rep. 210. 90— RuMkt Si Celluloid H. T. Co. V. F. \V. I)e\'oe A C. T. Reynolds Co.. 233 Fed. He|.. l.'.o. 01 — Standard I'aint Co. v. Hub- //(/(/ lo In litf ringed by. "William Clark & Soils' Parabola (Jold-Burnished Sharps."'"'' " RoDper.s. " '*" "Never Lfak.'"*' ' ' Caimn-Roy Watchrase ( 'o. • • •*« "Rubber-Bomul."«» and "Sot in Rul)ber."»'» "Rubberoid.'"'" "Condisanitas."»2 "Saphia. '"•'••' "Sapho.'"'« "Sopono.""-' "Savoline.""" "Sawin's Soluble Blue and Pepper Box."!* "Securine."»« "Seamle.ss. " '•'• l.eroid Roofing Co., 140 C. C. A. 235; 224 Fed. Rep. 695. 92— Sanitas Co. v. Coiidy. 4 P. U. 195. 9;{ — Enocli Mor;,'an's Sons Co. v. Sehwaehofer, 5 AM.. Pr. N. C. 265. 94 — I'noeh .Mor;,'an"s Sons Co. v. Wiiittier-Colturn Co., 118 Fed. Rep. (;:.7. 9.') — Knocli Mor;:an & Sons Co. v. Ward. 81 C. C. A. 616; 152 Fed. lu-p. (i90. 9(( — i-'iild V. W'a^Miel Syridieate, I.. K. ( 1900) 1 Ch. (151. 97 — Sawyer v. Kellofj^^, 7 Fed. Hep. 720; 9 Fed. Rep. 601. 98 — McCaw, Stt'venson & Orr, Ltd. V. Niekols. 21 R. P. C. 15. 99 — Sliaw Stoekinj: Co. v. Maek, 12 Fed. Rep. 7U7 ; 21 IJlatchf. 1. 331 iNPKINaEMENT. [§138 The Tnuh ttuirk or Tradi nuvic. "Shrewsbury, Marsliall & Co. Patent Tlucad." "Simplex." "Six Little Tailors." "Sorosis." "Southern Company, St. Louis." "Star." "Stark." "Steinway." "Stephens." "St. Ives." "Stuart's Dyspepsia Tab- lets." "Sunlight." "Swan." "Tonge's." "Trafford." "Uneeda." "Universal." "Vitae-Ore." l_:Marsliall v. Rosa, L. R. 8 Eq. 651. 2— Ki'ufTcl & Esscr Co. v. H. S. Crocker Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 187. 3 — Mossier v. Jacobs, (i.") 111. App. 571. 4 — Little V. Kellam, 100 Fed. Rep. 353. 5 — Southern Wliite Lead Co. v. Cary, 25 Fed. Rep. 125. 6 — Hutchinson v. Covert, 51 Fed. Rep. 832; 01 Off. Gaz. 1017. 7— Gardner v. Baih>y, Seb. 365; Fed. Case Xo. 5221. 8 — Steinway v. Henshaw. 5 P. R. 77. 5>— Stephens v. Peel, 16 L. T. N. S. 145. Jl(l(l I (J be infringed by. "Schrcushury-Marchal Pat- ent Tiii't'ad." ' "Simi)li('ity.'" - "Six Big Tailors." 3 "Sartoris." ' "Southwestern, St. Louis." ° "Lone Star."" "Star."" "Steinberg. "« "Steel Pens."» "St. Ives." •" "Dr. Stewart's Dyspepsia Tablets."'" "Ameriean Sunlight." '- "Black Swan." •'» "Tung's."'-* "Stafford." >•"' "Iwanta." '« "University." '" "Vitalizing Ore." i* 10— Alpin V. Richards, 20 R. P. C. 79!). 11— Stuart V. F. G. Stewart Co., 91 Fed. Rep. 243; 33 C. C. A. 480. 12— Lever Bros. v. Pasfield, 88 Fed. Rep. 484. 13 — f-:x pditr (.'aire. 15 Off. Gaz. 248. 14_Ton-e V. Ward, 21 L. T. N. S. 480. 15 — Smitli V. Carron Co., 13 P. R. 108. 16 — National Biscuit Co. v. Bak- . r. 95 Fed. Rep. 135. 17— Keuffel & Esser Co. v. H. S. Crocker Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 187. lS_Xoel V. Ellis, 89 Fed. Rep. 978. §1381 II(»l'KINS ON TK VPKM AKKS. \V,V1 The Trademark nr Tradi natm . Ildd lo hr iiifriiujcd by. ** Wamsiitta." " Wamycsta," '" " WanuT. " " Wit'iicr. " -" *' WarriMi." " Warranted. " -' ■' \Vfart'v«'r. " "I'^vcrlastiii^'. " -- "WeU'onio." "Wdeome A. Smith, "^a "Willoujrhl.y Lake." "Willoufrhby Kidge."" "Yusoa." "U-C-A."--' It follows that a woi'd may iiifriiin v. Bauer, 82 Fed. Kej). 662."-^ in— Wammitta Mills v. AlUn, 12 2.'>— W.'lsl.nch I/i-lit lo. v. Adam, Phila. S.J.'J. 107 Fod. R.-p. 4<>:i. 20 — Warner Ilrofl. Co. v. Wicnor. 20 — Collins v. Reynolds Card 134 C. C. A. 3!KJ: 218 Ffd. Rep. Mia. <^'«'-. 7 Al.l). N. C. 17, Price & fi.3.'»; Warner Rros. Co. v. Wiener, Steiinrt, 2r)2. 130 C. C. A. 424; 214 Fed. Rep. .30. 2(lfl— Mor;,'aM Envelope Co. v. 21_FroHt V. RindKkoi>f. 42 Fed. Wulton. S2 Fed. Rep. 4(i!) ; 81 Off. Rep. 408. <;a/.. Kn.'i: In tliis eonneetion, see* 22 — Aluminum Cookin;; I'tensil Kiinn v. l)ianion«-ver RroM. l.t«l.. Hoston .'lOn. WorkH V. Smith, 112 Fed. R<-p. 008. 27— RittslMir- Crnsli.d .^teel Co. 24— Pike Mfjj. Co. V. Cleveland v. l)ianion Fed. Rep. 890. 0.37042. :i:i:i INKKINGEMENT. f§138 The addition of othci- symbols, words or initials to tin- trade- mark of another will not operate to avoid a charge of infringe- ment. "No one who has counterfeited a legitimate trade- mark and applied the spurious symbol in competition with the genuine can avoid the charge of infringement by show- ing that the false mark has in practice heen so accompanied, on labels, capsules or otherwise, by tradenames, designations, descriptions or other accessories, not forming part of it, as to render it unlikely that the public has been deceived. Such a showing, while it may affect the nature or measure of the relief to be granted, can not defeat a suit for infringement." 2« In the absence of i)roof of any deception of the j)ublic, the courts have not been inclined to declare a different mark an infringement unless the similarity was close. Mark "Coca-Cola." "Colonel." "Cuticura." "Don Carlos." "Everyday Soap." "Glacier." "Grape-nuts," "Hurricane." "Ivy." "Kelvindale." 28— Bradford, J., in Bass, RatclifT & Gn'tton ( Ltd. ) v. Foigenspan, 96 Fed. Ri'p. 2n(;-2r2. 2fl — Coca-Cola Co. v. Branham, 216 Fed. Rep. 264. 30— St. Munpo Mf-r. Co. v. Viper Co., 27 R. P. C. 420. 31— Pottir D. & Chem. Corp. v. Pasfii'ld Soap Co. ( 1 ) , 102 Fi'd. Rep. 490; Sanu' v. Same (2), 106 Fed. Rep. 914; 46 C. C. A. 40. 32— Chance v. Gulden, 16r» Fed. Rep. 624; 92 C. C. A. 58; reversin-; Gulden V. Chance, 163 I'ed. Rep. 447. Relief refused r/.v against "Koke."2« "Colonial." 3'^ "Cuticle." 31 "Don Caesar." •■'2 "Everybody's Soap."33 "Glazine."34 "Grain-Hearts." 35 " Tempest. "3« "Ivory. "37 "Kelvinside."3s 33 — I'roitor & Gamble Co. v. Globe Refinin},' Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 357; 34 C. C. A. 405. 34 — JlcCaw, Stevenson & Orr, Ltd. V. Lee Bros., 23 R. P. C. 1. 35 — Postum Cereal Co. Ltd. v. American Health Food Co., 109 Fed. Rep. 898. 36 — Hurricane Patent Lantern Co. V. Miller. 56 How. Pr. 234. 37 — Goodwin v. Ivory Soap Co., 23 R. P. C. 389. 38— Meikh- v. Wiliiamsdii. 27 H. ]'. C. 775. § 138] lIitl'KINS ON Tl{ »I>i:.M \KKS. SM Mark "Nccco. *' "Now Departure. ■ * Xorub. "No-to-bne." "One Ni^'ht Cure. "Puddine." " I'yraiui2 — Foster v. Webster i'lano Co., F«-d. Rep. (12. 13 \. Y. Supp. 33H. 4'! — Mo«'l>iuH V. Luuin l)f .longe r>3 — Coleman 4 Co. I.dl. v. .Ino. & Co.. 21f) Fwl. Rep. 443. Urown & Co., lU ii. 1". C. (510. 40 — Soars, RtK-liuek 4 Co v. r)4 — HiM-Hsneck v. Is>' "Starli{j;lit " and a red paper star;'"" that " B. T. Babbitt's Tradcmaik Best Soaj)" is not infringed by "P. T. Butler's Trademark Best Soap";"" that the name "Social Reg- ister" applied to a directory is not infringed by the words "Newport Social Index" ;•'•" that the name "Vichy" was not infringed l)y "Lithia-Vichy ", there being numerous artificial waters ui)on the market;"'^ that the mark "Rough-on-Rats" was not infringed by "Rough on Skeeters. " the goods not being in comi)etition/''^ that tlie l)()ok title "Farthest North, Nansen," was not infringed by "The Fram 'Expedition.' ""* While the word "Muffler" is closely similar to "Mufflet," and the latter is a valid trademark for neck-scarfs, the use of the former can not be enjoined because it is aptly descriptive of the article to which it is applied/'- For the same reason, "Poresknit" as a trademark for underwear, is not infringed by the words "Porous Under- wear. (;.•? It is important to note in this connection the expression of Lord Cran worth, that "It would be a mistake to suppose that the resemblance must be such as would deceive persons who should see the two marks placed side by side. The rule .so restricted would be of no practical use."^-* And another rule is that a defendant can not evade the charge of infringement by "showing that the device or inscription upon the imitated mark is ambiguous, and capable of being understood by different persons in different ways.""'^' .')"» — Rawlinsoii v. Brainard & fil — Harper v. Lare. O:} Ffil. Rep. Armstronj,' Co., .")!) X. y. Supp. 880; flSO; ITarp.T & Bros. v. Lan-, 4.3 28 Misc. Ri-j). 287. C. C. A. 182; 10.3 F.-d. Bcp. 20.3. .')(! — Lifr^M'tt & Myors Tobacco Co. (12 — Hyf^'icnic Fleeced Underwear V. Finzer, 128 U. S. 182; 32 L. Ed. Co. v. Way, 70 C. C. A. 5r)3 ; 137 30.-). Fed. Rep. 592, 595. 57— Baltl.itt V. Brown, f.8 Ilun. 0.3— Chalmers Knitting Co. v. 515. Columbia Mesh Knitting Co.. lt>0 58— .'=;ocial R.'g. Assn. v. :\Iurpliy. Fed. R.-p. 1013. 128 Fed. Rep. llfi. (14— Sei.xo v. Provezende, 1.. R. 59 — La Repiihlique Francaise v. 1 ( Ii. D. 192. Schultz (4K 115 Fed. Rep. 19fi. «).") — Lord Watson in Singer Mfg. (JO— Wells V. Ceylon Perfume Co., Co. v. Loog (3), 8 App. Cas. 39. 105 Fed. Rep. 621. §139] HOI'KINS ON TKADICMAUKS. 336 Jj 139. Patent office rulings on similarity of alleged conflict- ing marks. — The tiocisioiis of the several commissioners of |»;it cuts as to siiiiilurity and dissimilarity of inarLs allc^'ed to \h-. conllu'tiu}; or itlcntical aro fr(M|iitMitly iiistriictivc and vahi- able as illustrations. In tin' lan "Nitro.""> "Pep-Kola." -2 "Satiiu'tte.""-' "Sea Foam." "^ ' ' Telen:rai)hoi)hone, ' ' "Velvet." '" 75 § 140. Miscellaneous matters relating to infringement. — In the cases of infrin^reinent it is manifest that the policy of the fiO — Et parte KcyHtoin' ("liamois Co., 101 Oir. Caz. .3 1(10. fl7— Alli'n B. Wrislf-y Co. v. Buck, n.l Off. Caz. 2483. OK— A'x parte Foley & Co., K7 Off. Caz. in. '.7. m—F.x pitrtr |)r Iliirt^r Mid. Co., Km Off. Oh/.. 177{t. ',{\—Ex parte V.ipl A Son. W Off. Oa/. 2321. 71— Ax parte \V. 15. M. ll.na|. \ Co., lO.'i Off. Cnz. 715. 72— /:x parte .Vuttmi, 108 Off. Oaz. 201. 7:1— Wood V. Hinclimiui, llo off. Cnz. (500. 74 — Ex parte Sodnfcmii Hakin^,' I*o\v(kT Co.. iX; <^ff. Caz. ll'M). I't—Ex parte HutcliiriH. 100 Off. Chz. 1. •{:»(». 7(1 — Ex parte Willard Clicm. Co., 107 off. (Jaz. I'.t72. 337 INFUINOEMENT. §140 law is clear, and that dil'liciilty in (Iftrniiiiiin^' i|iirsti(tMs of inl'i-iiij^cnuMit arises only out of llio facts. It was asked in tlie English Hoiise of Lords. "How can obser- vutions of judges upon otiicr and (juite different facts bear upon the present ease, in which the only (picstion is what is the result of the evidence?"'' Analogies will, however, fre- quently be found in tiie ad.iudi«'at('d eases whieli may assist in classifying tiie cliaracter of infringement under consideration. Infringements which disjday llie name or initials of the defendant arc none llie less infringements if any substantial portion of the mark is taken from tlie ])laiiitiiT's mark."*' This princi]ilc has ])een apjilied to a case where tlie defendant had washed i)laintiff's labels off his bottles, leaving only the marks l)lowii or moulded in the glass, and bad pasted his own labels upon the bottles,'" although in similar cases, where the name of the defendant was conspicuously displayed on the new label, injunction was refused.''" But the fact that the defendant does display his name upon his goods is always to be considered as a circumstaTU'C in liis favor.^' Infringement applied to goods o7 N. K. Rop. Mrl^-an. 2r)fl; Fwl. Caw> No. 2.047. .'^80. H.J— Hlofipid V. Payne. 4 B. & Rf)— 47 Bnrl). 4.">r); Cox, 340. Ad. 410; S«'h. r>0. Sm' alHo Tnylor 8(1— Browne on Trademnrkt* (2d V. Carpenter (2 1. 2 W. & M. 1; «'d. I . S 228. Cox. ;J2; Taylor v. Car|)enter (.'I I, 87 — AinHwortli v. Walmsley, L. 2 Sandf. Ch. OO.'J; Kdelsten v. R. 1 Va\. r)l«-.-.27. Kdelnten, 1 DKJ. J. A S. 18.'); Seb. 88 — Sehastian on TrademarkH 21.3. (4th V.(\.). p. 7M. 84— Sawyer v. Horn, 1 Fed. Rep. 80- Dennirton Mf^- (^"o. v. 24:J8. T(\ BroH. Co., .'i.'i \. Y. C. C. A. 2ti.1 ; ViCt K.-d. Rep. 025, Supp. 208; (;r Tlu* miinhtT 888 wsvd as a call for a tclcphoiio coiupaiiy "s so-callcil "trouble (Iciiartnu'iit "" was the basis of an application for iiijiiiu'tion ajraiiist a rival I'oinpaiiy whicli adopted the same number for tin* same purpose. The theory of tlu' a|)itlieation was that the ealls bein^' the same, the later user \vo\il(l or mi^ht learn of defeets in the rival's customer's .service and u.se tiiis information to induce its rival's i)atron.s to use the respond- ent's telephones. The application is, upon tiie face of the opin- ion, one of the most protescpie attempts to pervert the law of unfair competition. The relief soufjht for was denied."" In repard to letters, standing: alone or in initial combina- tions, the Eiifrlish courts have from an early ])eriod treated them as trademark.s,"" although it appears that under the Enj;- lish Act of ISTf). 38 and 39 Vict., c. 91, Vice-rhancellor Hall has held a single letter can not be registered as a trademark."^ The use of a single letter would appear to be at least unsafe, although it might in the Ignited States be regarded as a trade- mark ; and Judge Bradford in a recent oi)inion suggests that a single letter or figure may be "so peculiar aiul unusual in form or ornamentation" as to be a valid trademark.'''' Combinations of letters, used as initials, have been fre- quently apjiroved as trademarks in the American decisions,' and in the case of AmosUc(iun;,^ Scli. ."):J7 ; Hansomt" v. 07 — RanBonn' v. lUntall, 3 L. .1. Craliani. .">1 L. J. Cli. S!t7 ; Hon1. 3 My. 4 Cr. 338; CrawHliay v. OS— /» »>• Mitdi Ir. Ch. 7.'.; Hop- 32(5; CartniHl, 22(5. kinH V. HitdK-.K-k. 11 C. H. N. S. Oil— Dcnniwon Mf-r. Co. v. Thoni (55; Hall v. HarroWH, 4 D.-fJ. .1. i aH Mf^'. Co.. 04 Fed. Hep. (551(558. S. 150; ItarrowH v. I'dHall, Scl>. 1 — Ccron v. CartniT. 47 Fed. 530; In rr IJarrowH, L. H. 5 Ch. I). H<|i. 4(57; Frank v. Shopcr, 150 353; CartHT v. Carlih-, 31 Hcav. Matw. 583. 2fl2; Carti.r V. W.-nth.-ad, S.li. 100; 2— KU U. S. 51; 25 L. Kd. 0'.t3. Carticr v. May, Scb. 200; Moct v. ;141 INFRINGEMENT. (§141 theory that those h-tters as used hy the eomphiiiiaiit were indicative of quality, and not of ori^'in or ownersliip, as JudK^ Coxe has pointed out.' There can scarcely be a doubt that both numerals and letters of the alphabet may Kometiraes be technical trademarks, and the objection to their use in that capacity has been well stated by Judge Colt in the Supreme Court of :\Iassachusetts to be "the difficulty of giv- ing to bare numbers the cfFcet of indicating origin or owner- ship, and of showing tliat the mimbers used were originally designed for that i)urpose." ' And the same i>raetical sug- gestion was offered by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in these words: "It may be difficult to give to bare numbers the effect of indicating origin or ownership, and it may be still more difficult to show that they were originally designed for that purjiosc: but if it be once shown that that was the orig- inal design, and that they have had that effect, it may not be easy to assign a reason why they should not receive the same protection, as trademarks, as any other symbol or de- vice.'"^ A review of the cases indicates that the use of numerals or letters has been restrained sometimes on the theory that they were technical trademarks, but never where they were merely used to indicate quality;'' and where injunction has issued, the facts show that the infringing figures or letters were used in fraudulent comi)etition.^ In this connection it is well to note that "there can be no doubt, and indeed it is not disjnited. that two letters may constitute a trademark.''** So the American courts have .3 — Rliaw Stoekinji Co. v. Mack, 7 — Ranaomo v. Bontall, 3 L. .7. 12 Fed. Rep. 707. Cli. N. S. ir.l; Cillot v. Kottlo, .3 4— Lawrence Mf-;. Co. v. Lowell. Duer, f>24; Ainsworth v. Walmsley, 120 Mass. 32.')-. Price & Steuart. L. R. 1 Eq. 'AH; Oillott v. Ester- 418. l.rook. 47 Barli. 45.-); Cox. 340; 4S r, — Boardman v. Meriden Brit- X. Y. 374: 8 Am. Rep. .).')3 : Broad- annia Co., 3.") Conn. 402; Cox, 490. luirst v. Barlow. W. X. 1872. p. 6_/„ rr Eaple Pencil Co., 10 Off. 212; S.h. 411: Kinney v. Basch, Oaz. 981; Amoskeaj,' Co. v. Trainer, S.I.. .")42; Avery v. Meikle, 81 Ky. 101 U. S. r.l; 25 L. Ed. 093; Stevens 75. Linen Works v. Williani & John 8 — Kinahan v. Bolton, 15 Tr. Ch. Don & Co.. 121 Fed. Rep. 171; af- 75. firmed (52 C. C. A. 582; 127 Fed. Rep. 950. ^ \4'2\ HOrKIN'P ox TRADEMARKS. 342 uniformly lu-Ul tluit mtuuijxrauis or ^'mups uf two (.r iiutre letters not iiulieative of (luality consfilutc valid tiadtiiiiiiks ; thus we lind that the foUow iii^ iiuirks liave heen hchl valid: "A. U." applied to ^•i^'ars and eolTee ; " "IV H. H. " applifd to a medieine ; '" " H. H. 1 1." applied to iron ; " "S. li. " applied to coufrh-drops: '- "(J. E. " applied to eleetrie lamps; '=' "(J. F.'" api>lied to velvet ribbon;" "O. F. C." applied to whis- key;"'' ""A. <". A." applied to ticking; "' 'M. II. W." applied to boots;'' "T. O. (\" applied to oil-eloth.'"" And we find that similar jrroups of letters and monograms have been treated as valid by the Entrlish deeisions.'" §142. The judicial test of infringement. -It may be said, penerally. that the coiirts will api>l>- to tin' facts, in the class of eases that we are considering, any and all tests whieh are necessary to determine whether or not the competition estab- lished by the defendant is fraudulent. In delivering the n\nn- ion of the federal sujireme court in ('oofs r. .1/rrnV/r Thmul Co., Mr. Justice Brown observed: "The differences are less con- spicuous than the general resemblance between the two. At the .same time, they are such as could not fail to impress them- selves up<»n a ])erson who examined them with a view to ascertain who was the real manufacturer of the thread."-" «(_(;odillnt V. Aiu.iiiaii (in)- v. \m\\>, .VI All>. I-. 1. 4.").".; Frank n-ry Co.. 71 F.-d. Ucp. S7:{. v. SJvciht. I.-.(t Miiss. :.s:{ ; 2:i N. K. l()_Ko8t. 2S4. 17— Walk. t v. U.id. Fed. Cam* 11— Hall V. Harrows. 4 DcC. J. N« • 17(iS4. 4 S. I.jO. 18— Standard Tal)!.- ()il I'loth Vo. 12— Burt V. Sniitli, 71 F.-d. R.'j). v. Tr.-iit.m Oil Cloth & Liiiid.-um ICl Co.. 71 .v. 1. F.q. .'>')■">: <">:t At!. U.'p. 13 — f;cncral Kl.-ctric Co. v. Renew S4(t. Lamp Co.. 12S F.-d. H.-p. ir.4. IJ)— Hopkins v. llit.lic.ck, 11 C. 14_4;irnn v. flartrnr, 47 F..1. H. N. S. O."); Paul v. Harn.ws. 4 Rep. 4(J7. DeO. .1. & S. l.')(); In n Harrows. L. l.r, — n«). T. Sta^'^' Co. V. Taylor, R. -^ Cl>. H. :<•'»•*<; Cartier v. Car- n.'i Kv. n.'il ; 27 S. W. Rep. 247. Iil«'. ^H H.avan. 21)2; Moet v. Pirk- KvLAmoHkeaj.' Mfj?- Co. v. Train- erinjr. L. R. H Ch. D. ."172; Frankaii er. 101 V. S. r.l; 2.'. L. K.l. Wy.\\ V. I'op.'. 11 Cap.- of C.iod Hop.-. (diHH-'nt of Mr. .luHtiee CiUrordl. '200. To tli«- wime efT.s't H.-e Hiirton v. 2(»— CoatH v. Merriek Tlin-a.l Stratton, 12 F.-d. Rep. (ll»tl; Smitb Co., 140 U. S. .Wi; 37 L. I'M. 847. ;U.} rNFIilNGEMElNT. l§ H2 And ill all rases the courl will iiisiicct not only liu' tlifTcrences l)iit the rcscinblanccs, as Ix.tli must be considered in ascer- tainiiiK wln'tlirr tlie fompctition Ix'twceii the i)artics is fair or fi-andiil.'nt. As said by .Iiiroctor & Gamble Co. v. Fed. Rop. 327-332; 42 C. C. A. 370. Cilolie Rpfininj? Co., n2 Fed. Rep. Tlic test penfrally applied is. 3r)7-3(»2; 34 C. C. A. 405. wlictlier one "in the use of ordi- 22 — It has lieen held on circuit nary care" can he deceived. Sartor that tlie careless purchaser will v. Smith. 125 Ta. t>r>5 : 101 N. W . not he protected. X. K. Fairhank Rep. 515. Co. V. Luckel, Kinj; & Cake Soap 23 — Tcnkins. .1.. in Pillslmry v. Co., 88 Fed. Rep. «)04 ; but the case Flour-Mills. Co., 64 Fed. Rep. 841- was reversed on appeal: 8.^ c, 102 847; 12 C. C. A. 432. § H2] HOPKINS ON TK.VDKMAUKS. a44 Tlio fort'^iiinjj extract \vv\ fully cxprossos llio rharai-tcr of supervision over fairness in trade exercised by our courts of eijuity. When an article has become known by a catch- word or a peculiar package, any one seeking to use that I'orui of package, or a mark or name that suggests the catchword, must take can* to kct'j) within the Ixiunds of fairness in trade in so doing.-' • Mere colorable distinctions, so arranged as to eseape notice,-'* the use of labels which may be removed by retail dealers, leaving the imitated marks free to effect deeeption.^" and all the other devices and -schemes of fraudnlont competi- tion disclosed by the reports, are taken into consideration in determining the right to etpiitable relief. One of the most imjiortant tests is the existence of similarities of detail, whether of design, form, size, color or material. Relief will always be granted when "it is manifest from a comparison (of the two articles in controversy) that one was copi«'(l from the other."-' The court does not search for dissimilarities, but for j)oints of resemblance.-'* 24— .Stuart v. F. G. Stewart Co.. ftl F»'d. K.'p. 24.3; .33 C. C. A. 481). So the uw of the word "•Iwaiita" hai) Ihh'II enjoined as bein;.;; a fraud upon tlie owner of the trademark "Unetda," hotli words hein;; applied to biscuit. National Hi.scuit ("o. V. Baker, n.") Fed. Rep. 1.3."). And Ro of the pliraM' "Candy Catliar- tic" uwd by the plaintifT with tlie word "Cascarets" and by the de- fendant with tlie word "Cascara." .St. 27 — Shijiman. .1.. in Dixon (^rti- cible Co. V. lii-nliiim, I Fed. Rep. .'.27 -.'.30. 28— IIo«t«-tter V. Arlam.*. 10 Fed. Rep. 83K.sr2. ThuM .ludjre I.a comlM-, in eouHiderin;,' conflicting R. i: I' liquor labels, said: "Inspection of the lrtl)els must carry conviction to any unl.iased and unprejudiced mind that the later label was pre- pared by some one who had seen tlie earlier one, and that it was desifjned, not to dilT»Tentiate the ".'oods to which it was aflixed. Itut to simulate a resinion evi- denee as to whether the advertisement "is likely to deceive or not." but on that issue is to appiv his own eye and his own intellifrenee. and try to put himself "into the position of a person of averacre intelli advertiser in the false belief that he had the plaintiff's poods for sale are material witnesses and their tes- timony may ])e conclusive "that not oidy can persons be de- ceived, but that persons have been deceived." '^ Of course there is "no ])roi)ei-ty in the advertisement." and a defendant who copies i)laintiff"s advertising nuittei- (specifically, tlie phrases "Why i)ay cash for seeds? We trust you") is not "in any way tamixM-iuL' with husjiu'ss or prop- erty" and will lutt be enjoined.'" §144. Infringement in another jurisdiction. Where poods bearinp an infrinpinp mark arc in possession of the defend- ant, within tlie jurisdiction, thouph intended for exporta- tion, the jurisdiction of the co\irt is complete and relief will be pranted."*" But where the act of infrinpemcnt occurs wholly in a f(U'- eign couidry an entirely different question is presented, and 4.'-,_Walt«r V. AHhton. L. R. 48— Siii;;cr Mfj;. Co. v. Britiflli (1002) 2 Ch. 2S2. Knipin- Mf^'. Co., 2n U. P. C. :«1.1, 4(V_\\Vrth.-inicr v. Stiwiirt. .tlH, :{Hl. C'oofMT 4 Co., 2.1 H. I'. C. 481, 48.J. 40— WVrtlu'im.r v. Stewart. 47— Addlfjr Hourru- v. Swnn A Cooprr 4 Co., 23 U. P. C. 481. Edgar, Ltd., 20 H. P. C. lO.I, 120. ftO— Orr-EwinK v. Johnson, 1.3 C. I). 434; 7 A. C. 210. 349 INPUINOEMENT. [§ 145 relief has been deniod ovon tliouf^'h llio oourt liad jurisdiction over the parties, and the mark involved had been rej^istered in the United States; Judfje Kirkpatrick romarkiiig that "to liokl tliat tlie branding' of j^'oods in a iorcifj;!! country with a trademark registered in tin- I'nited States constitutes unfair competition in trade would be but another way of extending the tradeniai'k rij,dits of a citizen of the United States beyond the borders of the country." •'•' § 145. Trademarks of variable sound and pronunciation. — The owner of a valid trademai'k is, under all the authorities, entitled to ecjuitable i)rotection against one who subsequently adopts a mark calculated to create confusion of the goods of the respective i)arties. Thus the use of the mark "Iwanta" was enjoined by Judge Lacombe because it was expressive of the same idea as "Uneeda" previously aj)j)lied to biscuit,''- and in a later case, where the owner of the trademark "Yusea" sought to enjoin the use of the mark "U-C-A" Judge Hazel said: "The controlling contention in this action is whether the complainant, having a prior and exclusive right to the desig- nation 'Yusea,' has thereby also obtained an exclusive right to the use of the various pronunciations and the complex Avords or syllabic formations to which this particular word is susceptible. A moment's reflection reveals the various pro- nunciations and composite words to which 'Yusea' may be adapted. A trademark Avhich is variously pronounced and dis- torted to suit the purposes of trade and the fancies of the man- ufacturer in his endeavor to catch the public eye may yet be protected, within the fair and reasonable scope of a trade- mark, however artfully it may be conceived. It appears from the affidavits of complainant's manager and advertising agent, the person who conceived the word, that the common pro- nunciation by the trade in general is as if it were spelt 'You see a,' and that the mantles manufactured by complainant are commonly known as 'You-see-a mantles.' This is accen- tuated by the ordinary pronunciations that follow a casual observation of this comiilex word. The unique alterations in T)! — ^\'acuum Oil Co. v. Eajjrlo Oil r>2 — National Biscuit Co. v. Bak- Co., 122 Fed. R(T). 105. er, 95 Fed. Rep. 135. § 146] HOPKINS ON TKADKMAliKS. 350 till- itronuiu'ialions nf tin- word luust. I tliiuk. bo regarded us iiK'idoiital to its use. Tliis perhaps eiihaiiees its value as an advertisiii«r iiicdium. Tlicy do imf cliaii^'c the rcfristered desifrnation, and the word ■Vusca" rcniains tlic doininatiiijf word in the trailenuirk. • • • 'Ihc tnidcinark. because of its varial)le sound and pronunciation, became more prominently known to the public, and thereby served the purpose for whieii it was conceived; /. ' .. to attract the attention of the public to the ori^rinal eoneept ion." •''•'' § 146. The effect of a plurality of marks for a single article. — It would seem obvious that a trader mi^ht acquire and own as many trademarks as he desires. It would .seem that lie mi^'ht. if he desii-ed, have as many ditTerent trade- marks for the same article of merchandise as he saw fit. It seems perfectly clear that a trademark which is valuable be- cause it attracts custom in one community may be utterly valueless in another. The British decisions ai'e rej)lete with instances of special marks used for colonial trade, the same article beinp sold in Great Britain under a diffeient inatk. As a matter of fact many articles of merchandise are dealt in under a |)lurality of marks in this coimtry, certain marks beiufr used in the Northern trade, and dilTerent marks on the same mcM-chandi.se for the Southern and Pacific Toast trade. It would seem that the courts would be as little ('(tncei'iied wilh the lunnber of marks owned and used ]»y a niaimfaclui'er as ijiev would he with the number of patents or eo|)yri;rlits he mi^dit own or the number of any (»ther chattels it mijrht jilease him to accpiire and for which he haply has the nutans to pay. And yet, these views which on their face ap|)ear manifestly obvious, are in conflict with the s(tle (h'cision so far rendered upon this (pies- tion and to which we will now l)riefiy advert. Tn Caiulif v. Dnn''* the complainant nunuifaetured "Mo- line" plows at Moline, Illinois, (^n ditTerent (pialities of the.so plows they used the marks "A. No. 1.*' "A. X. No. 1." "No. 1," "X. No. 1." "No. M." and "P.. No. 1." 'I'he word .S.l- WilHl.nch I-i;,'lit Co, v. .Ndani. .11— ("andcr v. Dr.rr. U\ 111. .\pp. 107 Fed. Rep. Am. 4rt.''>. 4.1U. 351 INFRINGEMENT. [§ 140 "Moline" being gongraphioal, tlio complainant's case failed, anil the letters and nnmbers being merely descriptive of differ- ent qualities of the i)low did not help the complainant's case. This case, consequently, appears (juite irrelevant to the pres- ent (piestion; but it iuis been used as the basis of tlie decision of Judge Jenkins dealing directly with llie effect of ov.ricr- ship of a ])lurality of marks used on the same article, in Avhich he says: "The ])riinipal (piestion which is suggested by the bill and the evidence is whether the manufacturer of a single article lias the riglit to use. and be protected in Ihe use of, more than one trademark for tliat article. I find little authority ui)on the subject, and have given to the (luestion much con- sideration. Upon ])rinci])lc, 1 think that he can not. A trade- mark must denote origin. A trademark is defined by Mr. Upton to be the name, symbol, figure, letter, form, or device adopted and used by a mainifacturer or merchant in order to designate the goods he manufactures or sells, and distin- guish them from those manufactured or sold by another, to the end that they may be known in the market as his, and thus enable liim to secure sucli i)rofits as result from a repu- tation for sui>erior skill, industry or enteri)rise. Tipton, Trademarks, p. 9, c. 1. How can that i)urpose be accom- plished, if a manufacturer dealing in a single article used a thousand different trademarks to designate the article and its origin? Such use necessarily produces confusion, and fails of the single purpose of the trademark, to designate with cer- tainty the origin of the product. Certainly no manufacturer would, in regard of self-interest, indulge in such a practice; for he would thereby defeat the very purpose he sought to accomplish. This consideration has led me to the con^'^c- tion that the com]ilainant. the originator of perforated rolled toilet paper, would not do that which would blind the public mind to the originator and manufacturer of the article, and would tend to dissipate its trade. It is more probable (and the evidence, I think, sustains the conclusion) that its design was, by the various names, to distinguish between the size, shape, and quality of the paper manufactured, and that the marks were not placed thereon as indicating origin. The only authority which I have been able to find passing directly upon § 147] IIOI'KINS 0.\ TIUDEMAItKS. 352 this (juestion is tlio rnso of Candrr r. Ihcn . 7y\ 111. 439, 457. In the coiK'lusiou miclifd l»y tlic Suitn-iiK' Coiifl <»f Illinois upon this partifular (lucstion. 1 fully concur, it is remark- able that, with respect to so simple a jiroduct as that in (jues- tion, it should be found that so lar^je a number of claimed trademarks should be used by one numufacturer. A court of equity can not be impressed by an ajipeal to j^rotect that which produces infinite confusion. Tt may be that in the strufj^le for trade the whims of retailers must be consulted, and that rivalry between dealers to present something attrac- tive to the public eye must exist; but the courts of equity do not sit to indulfie the whims of i)urchasers, or to protect one in creating confusion. Tiicy sit to protect and to enforce legal and equitable rights. If this bill can be maintained, the extent of the jiroprietorshiji of the complainant in the use of arbitrary names applied to tlie subject of toilet paper would be limited only by the imagination of its oflRcers."^'^ § 147. Confusion of mail matter as test of the right to in- junction. — The fact that the use of tlie mails is involved in the majority of commercial transactions has made the ques- tion of the confusion of mail matter one of the tests most frequently applied in cases involving firm names, corporate names, and the like, to determine whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought."" Thus we find in a case where the Continental Insurance Company of New York, sought to enjoin the Continental Fire Association of Texas from the use of its corporate name. Judge Meek gave as one of the prin- cil)al grounds for denying the relief sought that "on account of the marked dissimilarity of the addresses of the two com- panies, mail matter intended for one of them will hardly be misdirected or miscarried to the other." "^^ In a more recent ease Judge Kohlsaat, in enjoining the name "Tiillipuli;in Out- fitters" at the instance of a coniphiinant doing business as the "Lilliputian Bazaar." based the right or relief upon the prob- :,r, — Albany Porforat«'d Wrappinp AiilMirn I.ynn Shoo Co , 100 Mp. Pap.T Co. V. John IIoImtj? Co , 102 401 ; 02 Atl. Rep. 100. Fed. Rep. 157, 158. 67 — Continental InHuranci- Co. .•»0 — N. \\. Lynn SIum; Co. v. v. Continental Fin- AHH'n, 0(1 Fed. it.p. Hj(i. Htn 353 INFRINGEMENT. [§147 alilc coiifiisioii of iiKiil matter, says, "It is evidciiit that ('(jm- plaiiiuiit is a inaiiiii'ai'tiircr and dealer, and that he dues a hirj^c mail-order hiisincss, as (hx-s also the d(;femlant. it hardly iiee(rs saN'iiij; that the proficiency of Ww mails at this date is such that evei y nook and (Mu-ner of the nation as well as of Manitoha is as acecssihle as were places r)0 miles away from New YorU a few years apo. It can not he otherwise than that the advertising and ennvassing of these two lival concerns pass and rei)ass each other ininimerable times in their journeys to the centers of trade as well as to the homes of the peoi)le — mute contestants for the favor of supplyinf^ the wants of each customer. "^''^ In a New Voi-k case, a ])laintifT who was the oriprinator of a ])ropiietaiy remedy sold to the defendant his business and jroodwill. iiieludinfr the sole riprht to use the names "Dr. David Kennedy, of Rondout, X. Y.." and "Dr. D. Kennedy, of Rondout, N. Y." It was subserpuMitly lield that the defend- ant had the ri Fed. l^p. CO— K.-nnody v. Dr. David Ken- 4.34, 437. iH'dy Corp., (it! X. Y. Supp. 22.">- .■)9 — Kennody Corp. v. Konncdy. "i^O. iV> X. Y. Supp. 017. §148] IIOrKlNS ON TKAKKMAKKS. 354 a corporation of New .Icrscy authorized to do Imsiiu'ss in PtMinsylvania. Both worr ('ii|j:ajri*d in llio same line of trade at i'ittsbur^'. and the result was a confusion in correspond- ence and in the drawinj; and honoring; (tf checks and drafts; and the defendants were enjoined. 'There arc two classes of cases,' says Mitchell. .1.. 'involving: judicial interference with the use of names: First, where the intent is to fret an unfair and fraudulent share of another's business ; and. second, where the efTcct of defendant's action, irrc^spective of his intent, is to pr(»duce confusion in the pul)lic mind, and con- sequent loss to the complainant. In both cases the courts of equity administer ccjuitablc reli(>f.' " '•' § 148. Hotel, restaurant and theatre names and rights cre- ated thereby. -As we have seen elsewlicre, as a freneral nde, the name of a i>lace of ])usiness will be protected as apainst competitors who adopt misleading sifjns or otlier advertising matter in (trder to divei-t to themselves the business t>stab- lished by the one first adopting the name. It is ap|)arent that there is tiiis distinction Ix'tween the names of hotels and the names of other places of ])usiness; as to other commercial enterprises tiiere may be unfair competition between places of business located in different cities or sections, and doinp a mail-order Itusiness. or transacting business trenerally by mail, while as to hotels, no such unfair competition can arise because there can be no confusion created by two hotels in diflfercnt cities, havitijr the same name. The mimes of hotels, moreover, stand in a class by themselves because of the com- plex character of the business involved. In one of the early opinion-s. Campbell, J., in a case involvin«r the name "Irvinp House." drew this distinction in the followinpr words: "We think that the |)rincip1e of the rule is the same, to whatever subject it may be applied, and that a party will be pn>tected in the use of a name, which he has a])propriatcd. ami by his skill made valiujblc, whether the same is upon articles of per- 61 — ArcbhnM. T.. in Vnn TTmi- hlmll In- ncciviMl liv <»nt> party and ten V, FF'Hitnii Ckcoh A ('li(i<'(ilaf«> opcnrd in the prcHctuT of n rop- Co.. 130 F of tJu- oflii-r pnrty. »oo A docTff ix r>r"p* F ( Cnw \Vf)rkH \ F I Cjimc Co. that all mnil cloiihtfully nfldr.--.! ir,'2 Win t«'.- l^". \ W I!, p. 128. 355 INFRINGEMBNT. [§ 148 soiiiil jtropci'ly wliidi lio iii;iy inanurai-t iir<', oi" a|)i)lic(l to Jin hotel wlicrc lie has hiiilt up a iirospcroiis liiisiiiess. • • • To make llic application, if one man has, by close attention to tlie comfort of his ^ruests. and by superior energy, made liis liotel y llie ti'avclri-, and caused its name to become popular throu^rhout the land, another man out,'ht not to !)(' pei-mitted to assume the same name h\ the same town, and thus dej)iive him who first appropriated the name of some i)ortion of the fruits of that goodwill -svhich ht)nestly belongs to him alone."''"' Under this doctrine, the hotel names "Columbia," '•- "McCardel House,"""' "Osborn House," "^ "Vonderbank Hotel,"'-' "What f'heer," «'' "Woods Hotel,""' "Metuchen l?ni."''^ and "Hotel Domin- ion,""" have been recognized and i)rotected in (Mpiity. The owners of hotels have further ])een protected by injunc- tion against the unauthorized use of the name of the hotel by persons running carriages and other conveyances for the transportation of travelers. Thus the proprietor of the Irving Hotel was granted an injunction against the use of the name of the hotel by the defendant upon his coaches, and upon badges worn by his employes. In granting the injunction, Cantel, J., said, "The question is, whether the defendants have com- mitted a fraud. I can not doubt that their intention was to mislead, and to induce travelers to believe that they were servants of the ]iroi)rietor of the Irving Hotel."'" A similar rule was made in favor of the lessee of the "Revere House" under practically the same circumstances."' More recently, the Supreme Court of New York granted an injunction to restrain the use of the name of the "Holland filrt — Howard v. ncnri(iiios, .3 4-40; rJamMc v. Stc|tliciison, 10 Mo. Sandf. 72.'). Ajip. oSl. r>2— Wliitfiold V. Lov.'lcss, (i4 OIT. 07— Woods v. Sands. Fed. Cn»o (in/.. 442. Xo. 17,n6.3. fi.3— McCardcl v. Pcik. 2S How. fiS— Buscli v. Gross. 71 X. -T. Eq. Pr. 120. SO.l: CA Atl. Rpp. 7.")4. fi4— "FTudsoii V. Oslu.rnr, -21 L. T. (!0— OTirady v. McDonald. 72 X. X. S. .3^0. J. R.]. 805; fifi Atl. Rep. 17r>. fiii — Vonderhank v. Schniidt, 44 70 — Stone v. Carlan. Cox. Cas.- La. Ann. 2fi4. Xo. 104. 66 — Woodward v. Lazar, 21 Cal. 71 — Marsh v. Billings, 7 Cush. 322. § 149] HOPKINS ON TKAl>KMAKKS. 356 House" as a traih'inarU I'm- ci^Mi-s. At tin* liiiic that (lie cijrars S(» inarkrd wcrt' iilatM'd ii|miii ilir inMrl<<'t. llicic was no linlcl of till' naino open for Imsiiicss in tlio city of Now Yt)rk. Thr plaintitTs won* the |iro|tri('tors of a huildiii^' in the cowrsc of construction, which was to he nsed for hotel |iMi|toses. how- ever, and that huildint; was well known thronjrhoiit the city of New York as the "Holland House."' The injunction was pranted upon the j^rround that the defendant intended to falsely represent to tlie public that the ei«;ars were in some way coiniected with the hotel known as the "Holland House."'- \Vh(>re both ])arties used the words "Opera House," — "contemporaneously • • • and without ; iiy definite intention to enjoy such use exclusively." both places of amusement beinp in the .same locality, a suit for injunction was dismissed.'-' The use of the same name by the owner of another clas.s of buildiTipr (for example, the later use of a name as that of a hotel which had been adopted for an apartment house) will not be enjoined in the absence of i)roof of damajre.'^ § 149. Artistic productions as subjects of unfair compe- tition. — lias the artist who ci'cates a distinctive chai'actei" in a ]>icture any rijrht to its ])rotection aside from the copy- right laws, assuming' that llic jiicture is not used as a trade- mark? Outcalt. a (lesijriicr of comic pictures, exploited the character of "Huster Hi-own," in various |)ictures. He sold the pictures to a ncwspapci-, by whicli 1h(>v wci-e co|iyri}rhted. Ui)on liis application to enjoin that j)aper from ])ublishin^' comic sections embracintr jiictures of "Buster Brown" in scenes and situations other than those in whii-li Outcalt had depicted him, dud^'c Lacombe dismissed the motion as based u]H\u a theory both novel and unsound.'" It is to ])e hoped that the (iMcstion will receive fuiMlicr judicial consideration. It is far from clear that the creator iA' such a ti;rure of comic 72— Kinj.'Hl.'.v \ .Inc.t.y. 20 N. 74— .\8tor v. West S2<1 Str Y. Stipp. 44. H.-alty Co.. 1.V2 N. Y. S. fi.Tl -. Ki? 7n — Chndron npcrii lloiiw Co. v. .\pp. Div. 27.T. * I-«Kimir, 71 N.i.r. 7S''>; !tO X. W. 7.'» — Oiitrnlt v. N.w Y.irk ll.ruld. Hep. 049. 1 «« '■'<<1- •^(>s(> has no ri^'lils lliat a court of equity can rec'oj^ui/i'. l$ut wIkm'c a t'liarj^'c dt' uiilair (Munpcl ilion is liascij upon the rei)roducti()n hy the (Icicndaiil of works of art wliich tin' complainant mifjht have, hut lias not, copyrij^'hted, a very (lili'erent (juestion is i)resentetl. The sale of the uneojjyri^lited work by the plaintiff is a dcdicaf ion to the |)ublie, and the defendant or any other may copy the woi-k by any jjrocess without bein<] Mrp. A. 321; l.'.T F.<1 R<'p. 74.''.. 1«3 81— Hiriim Wnlk.r A S.mH ▼. «0- Siixl.-hinT V Wiit'ti.T, Jlf, I' (Jrubman, 224 Fed, lUp. 725. 8. 37 r,, .ifil; r>i L. Ed. r,2r>; aflirm- 359 INFIlINfJKMKNT, [§153 inform the public that he is inanui'ucturing articles suitable I'or use on Ford machines, lie should not be permitted to adver- tise them as Ford articles, but should be refjuired to describe them in sudi a wny as to indicate that they are not manu- factured by the conijjlaiiuxnt.'' **- § 153. Solicitation of customers by former employe. — It is still an open (lurstion wlictlicr one who lias, as a salesman or othei-wisc, had the entree to customers, may on entering a eomi)etinfend- ant) can not be restrained from sellinp: his commodities, for himself or for any employer, in any part of the city, or to any person, so long as he does not use any property belong- ing to the complainant, or copies thereof that were surrep- titiously made. So far we think ourselves well within equity .iurisdiction. on general principles. " ^^ The protection, by injunction, against the use of lists of cu.stomers of a former employer, has been granted in a number of cases, the in.iunction being made so broad as to restrain the employe and later employer from calling upon the cus- tomers named in such lists or soliciting their patronage, under circumstances aptly described as follows: "It follows that defendant tea company and its officers and agents will be re.strained from obtaining the benefit of plaintiff's list of customers by hiring drivers away from the plaintiff for the purpose of having them canvass and solicit trade from the plaintiff's customers formerly served by them. That this was done in the case of Wahl and other drivers admits of no doubt. "The defendant tea company undoubtedly has the right to solicit the trade of plaintiff's customers, and to obtain a list thereof by using opportunities for observation o]-)en to all. Plaintiff has no vested i^rojierty rights in the trade of such 82 — Brown, J., in Ford Motor 8.3 — Fish, .J., in Stein v. National Co. V. Wilson, 223 Fed. Rep. 808. Life Association, 105 Ga. 821 Compare §134, ante. (1899). j \y,\] imiKINS ON TKAniCMAKKS. 'M\0 I'ustomors. Tlu- vii-f of (Icfriidanl 's position is llial it ohlaiiu-d the lists or copies tlioroot l»y liiriiitr the drivers ami made the lists of value to itself by si'iidiii^' the drivers to transfer, if possible, the trade from their fornu'r emph»yer to their new employer. In other words, allhon^rh the end mi;rht be lawful, the means adopted were unlaw fid. This is a case not of nudi- eious interference with contracts where c«|iiily icfuses to in- terfere unless the scrvici's are of a \ini(|ue and special char- acter, but of unfair competition. • • • 'p|i(> conduct of defendants amounts to an nidawfid obtaining and use of a tradt' list.""*' And in most oT the cases in which snch relief has been graided it has been based upon the theft or surrep- titious cojiyiufir of the customer's list of the former employer, rather than upon any theory that, in the absence of such a ^ l>hysical Xhwa as the stolen or copied list, there should be any denial of the employe's right to solicit the trade of the same customers for another employer ;^^' but there are other cases having no such refinement to support them, in which the dri\er-sale.smen of laundries or bakeries, in the absense of any written or printed list, have been enjoined from solicit- ing their former trade. ^" and these eases seem to the writer to be wholly vicious and ojiposed to public policy. They give to the first employer the power to dejirive the emidoye of the right to earn a livelihood among the i)eople to whom he is known, so that a contract of simi)le employment is. by judicial construction, converted into a covenant not to re- engage in business on a particular route or with particular peojjle. There is no consideration fur such a covenant, and it is thought that the liberty of th(» custonu>r. as well as the employe, is unwarrantably alu'idged by sm-h decisions. It must be conceded that the courts have gone a long way in curl)ing the activities of former employes. Not only has the emjjloye been enjoined from soliciting the trade of his K4 — I'ouikI, •'., in W'itkop A R(V I'.mpiri' Stniin l-iuindrv •"«>. HolmcH Co. V. C.rtnt Atlantic i v. I^»ziir, Iflr) Calif. Of); IM) I'ac. I'arifio T«'a Co., 124 N. Y Siipp., Hep. IISO; Smith v. Kornan. fi Ohio U:,(\ (Sup. Ct., IJMO). Dec. n-print :{2; Hoosin^' v. Dor- H.v— St<-v.-nH 4 Co. V. Stih'8, 20 mun. i.M N. Y. S. 'JIG; 148 App. R I. S'JO. Div. 824. :{(il INI-HINOEMENT. [§ 15:{ foniu'i' cnslumors. Ixil Iroin sclliiij,' to (Mistoiucrs u ho, iiiiso- licitcd, s()uj;lit to l)iiy ""foods fi-om him.'*" In foUowiii}^ tliis line of pcocoduro it has been several times lield thai tin- ciiiphjye not only can not solicit llie customers Avliosc names wci-c originally pivcn him t)y the earlier cm- ])l()yer, hnt tlial lie couhl not solicit the ti'adc of such cus- tomers as iio had |ii()cuT-cd for the former employer by his own efforts.^'^ In all of the cases referred to, there was no question of business secrecy, and all jiroceeded upon the theory that there was an abuse of confidence \\heii the salesman tried to ])rofit by tiie trading ac(jiiaintance made in the course of his former emjiloyment. Logically, it is quite immaterial whether the solicitor was employed by a bakery, a laundry, or an insurance company; and amidst the flood of false reasoning attending this subject it is refreshing to find the Geor^Ma court making this clear statement: "The relation of Stein to the association •was not a confidential one in the sense that he, by reason of it, acquired a knowledge of any business secrets. * • • That knowledge of the policyholders which would be useful %) him, in the event of his representing as agent another com- ])any, was not confided to him })y the association, if derived from it at all. Persons may have taken out policies in the association on account of personal friendship for Stein or confidence in his integrity, and tlure is no reason why he should not be allowed to solicit their business for another company which he represents, his agency for the association having been terminated." ^^ In a New York case the injunction sought against an in- surance solicitor was denied in an opinion which states: "The uncontradicted evidence tends to show, and the custom is so universal that the court may take judicial notice. * • • that the business of a fii'c insurance agent, at least in the smaller cities and towns, is to represent contemporaneously several insurance com])anies, and consists in soliciting per- 87_Lov,.n V. ?(■(,], 1.-. 1.->S Tils. If..-) Calif. O.".; 1:^0 T>ai'. R.-p. IISO l.'iO. (liascd on Calif. Civ. Code. § 1085). 88— Witkop & Holincs Co. v. 80— Fish. J., in Stein v. Xation- Boyce, 61 N. Y. Misc. 12fi; Empire al Life Association, 105 Ga. 821 Steam Laundry Co. v, Lozicr, (1899). § 15iJ] llol-KINS ON TKADK.M AUKS. 3G2 sons to jxTinit tlu> ajrciil to |il;ic<' iMsuraiicc for them, or in being solicited by those (U-siroiis of hciii^' insured, for the same purpose. Only in rare eases do those wlio seeli iiisnr- anee express preference for any one tire insurance company over another, or request that their insui'ancc he iihiced in any jiarticular coyipany. The proof in this case tends to siu)\v that, for the three aiul one-half years Shipman was the af^ent of the plaintiff and other companies, he was rarely, if ever, requested to |)Iace insurance with any particular company. and exercised his own judirment in determining; with which of the insurance comjianics he i-eprcsentcd he would i)lace the insurance. • • • 'fj^ piiHeyhoIder was free to renew with any comj^any he mifrht see fit or not to renew his policy at all. Shipman i)rocured the insurance for the plaintilT in the tirst j)lace from customers or i)atrons of his own. It is en- tirely lawful f(^r the defendant, so lon«; as he does not use for that purpose the information feathered exclusively from the ]ilaintiff's iiro])erty. to solicit these customers and i)atrons in behalf of any insurance com]>any he may see tit. the plain- tiff or any other, so lonp as he does not abridjre the enjoyment by the i>laintiff of his beneficial interest in existing contracts of insurance by inducing imjiroj^er cancellations.""" It is the writer's conclusion that the more offensive decisions touchiiifr ui)on the question under consideration are due to the cctnfusion of law with ethics, which is over-prevalent in modern judicial decisions as well as in modern le<;islation. In reaching: the conclusion to prrant the injunction the rifjhts of the cmj)loye have ])een wiped out. in some instances, by treat- inp his knowledpre of the former employer's customers as "confidential knowledge." thoufrh lu) trade secret is involved, and the names and addresses of the customers could be law- fully ascertained by anyone who mipht see fit to follow the salesman in bis daily or weekly canvass. One opinion of this type reads as follows: "The oblitration of an employe not to divnlpe or use confidential knowledge pained in tl ourse of bis em|)loy- ment to the |»rejndice of his em|)loyer is the foundation of 00— JlfMikfT. t . in Vatioiia! Tir.' insurance Co. V. t)uUar(l, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 2:U. :}G:{ INKKINCr.MKNT. [§ 154 every eoiiti-.n't of liiiiii^'. It is uiil'iiii- for tlx' (Icfciidaiit to take advanta^'e of kiiowledtre imparled to him in eonfi- denee and use that kiiowled^'c to (h-stroy j)hiiiitilT"s busi- ness. The defendant furnished an employe of plaintiff's competitor with information of idaintiff's customers for the j)urp()se and wliich was used by such emi)loye in mak- ing (b'liveries for such com))etitor, aiul he claims the right to jx'rsonally go ovei' the route, call upon each customer of the i)laintifT whose name and address had been furnished him for the |)urp()se of plaintitT's business, solicit orders for plaintiff's competitors, take up |)laintiff's trading- stam]) books from such customers, and issue a trading book of like stamj) valiu' to the customer furnished by plaintiff's competitor. If such eonduid must be api)roved and adjudged to be right, projx'r, aiul lawful, there would seem to be no limitation ujxin the gross beti'ayal of c(»nfi- denee by an unscrupulous employe."'" lu the case of an ad\(M"tising solicitor .ludge (Irosscup stated very clearly what the w riti i- conceives to be sound docti'ine: "romi)lainant chai-ges that Mahin has enticed away its (dients, and has been i)rocuring them to cancel contracts with the eomplaiiumt iu)t yet fully perfoi-iiuMl. As to the first part of this charge, I hold it was within Mahin's right, after the connection ceased, to iu)t oidy receive, but to solicit, the pat- ronage of these clients. Whether he could rightfully advise them to break existing contracts with complainant is another question." ^- §154. Inciting breach of contract as unfair competition. — The general jirinciides of the law of unfair competition extend to those acts, done in competition, which are designed to dis- turb the contractual relations between employer and employe, or between the plaintiff and a third party. Those principles came into existence long before the broad doctrines of the modern law of unfair competition came into existence. They were established before the day of Blackstone, and were origi- nally developed in cases involving the enticement of the servant, or apprentice, from the master. They were expanded to include cases of inciting breach of the contracts of opera ni— Brown. J., in Witkop & 02— Proctor & ("oilier Co. v. Ma- Holmcs Co. V. Boyco, 118 N. Y. liin, 'J3 Fod. Kcp. 875, 87G. Supp. 401, 464. § 154] HOIKINS ON TKAUKMAKKS. 364 siiifjors by tlio londiiij; i-aso (»f LkhiIiii r. djii, in l.*^.')^."^ and tin* law jjMvoruiiif; the suhjcfl ttf iiicilcd lirradi ^rciiri ally was suniincd uj) l>y the lal«' Mr. .lust ice Hrcwi'i- as follows: "It has ht'cn rcjM'atrdly held that, if one nialiciously iiitcrfores in ]i contrai't hftwcfu two parties and iiidm-cs oiif of tlicin to break that contract to the injui-y of the other, the party in- jured can maintain an action ajrainst the wron<.'doer. " '" Sinee unfair coiii|»et it ion hecanie reco;:iii/ed as a distinct division of e(|uity jurisprtnlence the courts have rec()«rnized that the eases of incited breach, whei-e the tortfeasor was in eoniniereial competition witli the phiintitT, sluudd l)e ehissified as unfair competition cases."" Obviously, however, wlien a ])i'eacji is incited by one who is not a business eomjietitor of the party (buna4 — An;'l<' V. (Miipa^ro, etc., T\a'\\- OLhthovxi. Sclintiwalii v. lia^'uitiH. way Co., l.')l U. S. 1; .38 L. Kd. .">.'.. ;!2 Okla. 22.]; 122 I'ac. I!.]!. 20:{. Oj^Thcy arc r«'f may he liahk' also, because of offeriuf; to indemnify the l)reaehin3 Ala. .348; Califor- nia. Boysoii V. Thorn, 08 Cal. r)78; 33 Pac. Hep. 402; Indiana. -lack- son V. Mor<.'an, 40 Ind. App. 376; 04 X. E. Rep. 10-21; Kcnturkif. Chambers v. Baldwin. 01 Ky. 121: Bourlier v. Macauley, 01 Ky. 135; 1.) S. W. Rep. 60; Missouri. Glen- coe Sand & Gravel Co. v. Hudson, 138 Mo. 439; 40 S. \V. Rep. 93; \rir York. Ashley v. Dixon, 48 X. Y. 430; yorth Carolina. Swain V. Johnson, l.il N. C. 93; 65 S. E. Rep. 619; Xorth Dakota. Sleeper V. Baker, 22 X. D. 386. § 156j iiorKiNs ON tuai>i;makks. :j(JG to go furtluM", iiitt'r\ t'liiii^' ai*tivt*ly botwi'iMi the coiitrui'ting piirtios, as a (Ittiiiiiiaiit |»t;»'iu'y in producing,' a Itrcadi by promise of iiKK'iuiiily to one df lliciii to induct' tlu' lucacli. When tlif sttlit'itor kiiowiiij^ly aixi iiitt'iitioiially jjocs beyond mere soliritation to indui'e another man's eustomer to do business witli him, and promise to hohl that other man's eus- tomer harndess for l)reaeh of eoidraet with liim. h(! transcends the ri^dits of tlie hiw of competition, has no 'suflicient justifi- cation." .md tliereby becomes liabh* to him wliose customer is taken over. Such conduct is an unhiwful interference with anotiier man's rijjhts. for whicli he may maintain an action and recover nominal dama^M-s. altliou^di the contract be not actually breached in consecpience of the solicitation.""'* § 155. Contracts relating to stock quotations. — In the ease of stock market (piotations. the contract ix'in^' between a stock ex(dianprc and the teleprraph companies and bindinj; tlie latter to certain channels of distribution, tlie United States Su])reme Court (by a vote of 6 to r{) has decided that injunction will lie ajrainst the telefrraph companies and the uimuthorized recijiients, from the companies, of such cpiotations.' In the seventh circuit it had l)een held by the circuit court of api)eals that the exchanire had a i)roperty ri^dit in the quotations.2 a conclusion reaffirmed by the supreme court in a later case."' ^ 156. Appropriation of "blind" advertising as unfair com- petition. — 'I'hc le«ral relationship of advert isin«: to \ho l)usi- ness in wliieh it is employed is not yet clearly established. The publication of a catch-word or catch-phrase, as the open- ing of an advertising campaign, is a frequent expedient. The name of the advertisei- and the name of the product do not appear in the preliminary advertising. wlios(> purpose is to f»n — TonoH. J., in CitizonH' Lipbt. h.v Co., 1.10 F.-.l R.p. .'■>n7. M^; TTcat & Pow.T f'o. V. Montirnmcrv r>i C. C. A. fifin. T/it.'ht A \Vnt|M'rty nnfi S. W. Rep. 707. Rep. fid; Forney v. Enpineerinji ."i — Carland, J., in Carroll v. Du- News Publishinf» Co., ^^7 Hun. ^SS ; luth Superior Mill. Co., 2.32 Fed. 10 X. Y. Supp. 814; Hanover Star Rep. 675, r>81 (C. C. A. 8) ; follow- Milling Co. v. Allen. 208 F.-d. Rep. ing Borden lee Cream Co. v. Ror- f)!.-?; 12.5 C. C. A. 515; affirmed. 240 den Condensed Milk Co., 201 Fed. V. R. 40.3; Simplex Automobile Co. 510; 121 C. C. A. 200; Corning v. Kahnweiler. 162 App. Div. 480; Crlr.ss Works v. Corning Cut Class 147 N. Y. Supp. 617; Astor v. West Co.. 107 N. Y. 173; no X. E. Rep. 82d Street Realty Company, 167 449; Apollo Bros. v. Perkins, 207 App. Div. 273; 152 N. Y. Supp. § ir>7! HOl'KINS ON TKADHM.UtKS. \iiiS ^ 157. The appropriation of ideas, aside from patent, trade- mark or copyright, as unfair competition. In niiiny nt' tlif preoedijip sections in tliis chapter we have examined the hoi-- ilcrhmd of industrial i)roperty ri^jhts. The ever rcfiiniii<; me respects, similar to the present, mi^dit be involved. A dressniakinp establishment mijrht employ hitrh- priccd dc.sitrners. and their jtroduct iiii^dit be copied. ,ind the designs thus appropriatcil. Architects mipht build houses and utilize extrcjiiely valuable methods and ideas, and others rt31 ; Sartor v, SrliHfl«-n, )2."t Tkwii. (I— Firnt Hook i>f .FiiriHpniilciKM', 607; if'i V w. .'■,11. ( h vrr. 3G9 INKKINGEMKNT. I § l-''"'' biiil(liii{^ houses niit^Iit follow llicsc ideas. Seiilplors mi^'lil carve statues of ^I'eat eoniniereial value, and stone carvers might copy these sculptures. If can not now he determined how far such appropi'lation of ideas could he prevented; hut it would seem that where a product is placed upon the nuirket, uiulei- advertisement and stat<'iiien1 that the snhstitute fir imitatinjj: i)roduet is a dujjlieatc of the orif,Miud, and where the commercial value of the imitation lies in tlie fact that it takes advantage of and appropriates to itself the eommereial rpiali- ties, reputation, and sala])le properties of the orifrinal. equity should frrant relief."" Reduced to its final analysis, the doctrine of this ease is that if I nuike for sale a copy of another's unpatented, uneoi)y- rifrhted j^hysieal ])rodnction, T do so at my peril, having regard to the novelty, cost of production, and other distinctive fea- tures of the origiiud. The right to multiply copies created by this decision would seem to make copyright statutes super- fluous. The case would seem to present a typical damnum absque {ujuna. and to establish an extremely doubtful prece- dent. This subject has been discussed in a number of cases, the Fanotijyui case being one of rather extreme views. These cases can not readily be classified, but fall roughly into two divisions ; First, cases where the injunction has been granted upon the finding of fact that the copying of the plaintiff's mer- chandise resulted in the sale of defendant's merchandise as and for that of the plaintiff.^ 7 — Fonotipia T.imitod v. Bradloy. v. Goorpo Frost Co., 17fi Fed. Rpp. 171 Fed. Rep. 051. 064. .■{•■?«; 100 C. C. A. 258; Stewart v. 8_Fonotipia Limited v. Bradley. Hudson. 222 Fed. Rep. 584; U .S. 171 Fed. Rep. 051 ; Fox & Co. v. Expansion Bolt Co. v. Kroncke Glynn, 101 Mass. .344; 78 N. E. Hdw. Co., 225 Fed. Rep. .38.3 ; Rush- Rep. 80; L. R. A. (N.S.) 100(1; more v. Manhattan S. & S. Works, SteifT V. Binp. 215 Fed. Rep. 204; 10:5 Fed. Rep. 030; 90 C. C. A. 209; Rtrause v. Weil. 101 Fed. Rep. 527; 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 2G0 ; Rushmore Enterprise Mfjr. Co. v. Landers, v. Saxon (C. C.) 158 Fed Rep. 400 ; Frary & Clarke, 131 Fed. Rep. 240; Baldwin v. Grier Bros. Co.. 215 65 c! C. A. 587 ; Yale & Towne Mf^'. K.d. Rep. 735; Grier Bros Co. v. Co. V. Alder, 154 Fed. Rep. 37; 83 Baldwin, 210 Fed. Rep. 735; 135 C. C. A. 140; E. B. Estes & Sons C. C. A. 433; Moxie Co. v. Daoust, § i:>Tj HOl'KI\> U.N IKADK.M AKKS. ;{7o SfcouJ. rases whcrr tlir iiijuiirtivo relief has l)eeM denied upon the jjrouiul tlial the defeiuhiiit has tlie absolute rij^jht to copy the plaint iff s nu'rehandiso so long as he "does not pretend that the vopy is an tu-ij^Miial |>roduet of the eoniplain- ant.'"" The ultinwite distinetion between this group of eases"* and the fornuT is that unfair eonij)etition is found to exist in the one group, and finuul absent in the other. The eases uiuler consideration are strongly analogous to those involving geogi-aphical or otherwise descriptive names which have ae(piircd. through user, a secondary meaning." K.- 4.U. \-2^ (.'. (' '2(Ki Fi-(1. :n«. — Kcvstoiir Type Foundry v. Portland l»uh. Co.. I(i8 C. C. A. "lOS; 186 Pod. Rep. (WO. 10 — Diamond Match Co. v. Sa{r>- to insist upon tin- second comer's addin;,' some arbitrary mark, it- self not essential, liy way of distinction. The case is in es- sence no dilTerent from thow of the secondary user of descriptive naw Match Co.. 74 C. C. A. ftO; 142 or jjeo^'raphical names. Tlie plain- Fed. Rep. 727 ; Rathhone, Sard &. Co. V. Champion Steel Ranjie Co.. 110 C. C. A. r)9(); 180 Fed Rep. 20; 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 2r>8; Pope A. M. Co. V. McCrum-nowell Co., 112 C. C. A. 31)1, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 463; 191 Fed. Rep. 979; Rice & Co. V. Redlich Mf^r. Co., 122 C. C. A. 442; 44 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1057; 202 tiff in both cases finds himrt«'lf in such a position that his customers have come to associate his make with some feature whicli in its ori- ;;in did not rei>resent him at all. It can make no dilTerence that in cases of genuine secondary User the fea- ture is itself a symbol, representa- tive. I)ut representative of some- Fed. Rep. \'>ry; Armstrong Seataj,' thin;,' else tlian tlie plaintifT's man- Oyster Co. V. Smith's Island Oyster Co., 130 C. C. A. fi.'.fi; 224 Fed. Rep. 100; Kisenstadt Mfg Co. v. .T. M. Fisher Co., 232 Fed. Rep. 9r)7 ; Flaf;}.' Mfj;. Co. v. Ilolway. 178 Mass. 83; 59 N. E. Rep. 607. 11 — "In such cases the first <|ues- tion is always whether the points of similarity are essential features <»f the tiling Hold. When tliey are, the rijiht to copy them is necessar- ily involved in the riyht to sell that particular thin;,'; if the plain- tiff is afTrTti'd, it is his miwhanee that his manufacture has not be- <-ome aHHociated with somi- arl>i- trnrv and uneswntial feature. Yet Jifaeture. wliiie in ca.ses like this the feature was not ori^'inally a synil>ol at all. In each cas«' the fea- ture has becom*' a symbol of the maker, and, when others use it, he runs the chance of losing his cus- tomers. There is e(|ual reason in each case to comjiel the 8«'cond eomt-r to add some distin^'uishinj; nuirk to tlie fiature to avoid its ac- (|uired meanjn<.'. Nor does it mat- ter in substance whether the fea- ture lies in the case or container or in the very thin;; its<'lf. Coca Cola Co. V. Oay-Ola Co., 200 Fed. 720; 119 C. C. A. 164; Id.. 211 Fed. ft42: 128 C. C. A. 440; Hiram •ven here it is often jioH.nilile Walker & Sony v. Grubman ( 1). 371 INI-'KINUKMKNT. §157 IIciicc, the in'ineiplos applied arc llmso wliicli wc have here- tuioro coiisicicrcd. In examining these eases, it is eiirious to note liow far some eourts have gone toward attempting to establish a (juasi rigid of property in ideas, whieii has no existence at common law, and which, if it did exist, would obviate all necessity for patent or cojiyright statutes. '- C.I 222 I'Vd. Hep. 478. Tlic limita tion in ui)i)lic'iili()ii must lu' tlic feasibility of a murk wliidi !^liall not be too burdmsomc. "In cases like Enterprise Mfj^. Co. V. Landers, Frary & Clark. 131 Fed. Rep. 240; (iri C. C. A. ns? : Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. Alder, l.')4 Fed. Hep. 37; 83 C. C. A. 149; and (;rier Bros. Co. V. Baldwin, 210 Fed. Rep. 735; 13') C. C. A. 433, tiien- were fea- tures added by the defendant wliieh could have no purpose, and, what is more to the point, no efTect, ex- cept to mislead tlie buyer into sup- posing the ^'oods were of tlie plain- tifT's make. Tliey could be sub- fraeted from the article without affecting those features which con- trolled the buyer's choice. Such cases as Riishmorc v. ^lanhattan Screw & Stamping Works, lt!3 Fed. Rep. 030; 90 C. C. A. 290; 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 200; Lovell-McConnell Mfg. Co. V. American Ever-Ready Co., 19.-) Fed. Rep. 931 ; llf) C. C. A. T.IO; and Rushmore v. Badu'er Brass ^Iff,'. Co., 198 Fed. Rep. 379; 117 C. C. A. 255, avowedly rest upon the same basis, yet the doctrine was in those cases pressed very far, since the desipn of a motor lamp or horn may well be a part of the reason why the buyer chooses them. To deny the second comer the ri;.'bt to use that design seems rather to step beyond the principle which protects only such symbols as are nprcHentativc of the plaintifT's manufacture, noi" does it seem an tiitinly ade(piate answer to say tliat tlie features enjoined are non- functional. It is only when the meclianical operativeness of the thin;; is certainly all that deter- mines the buyer's ciioice that such a criterion is safe. Mar;,'arete Steifl", Inc. V. Bin^' ( D.C. ) 215 Fed. Rep. 204." Learned Hand, J., in Cham- I)ion Spark Vhis] llolKINS (i\ lU.VDK.M \|{K> 372 §158. Threats as unfair competition. That tlucatcMicil acts wliii'li wouKl triitl til iiijiirc ur (lr>ti(iy tlic wnmvrcd iicrsoii's businos.s, as wt-ll as luisrlcss tlirt'ats t'ouiidt'd on in* intention or liasis of ai'tion. may nndcr appropriate rircninstaiu'cs be t'njoinfd. is \\v\\ ostahlislu'd. titli's «>f »uiii|ilaiiiiiiits' Dinls. tak- ing thi' position tliiit tlioHc cardH an" uiu-o|tyri;.'hti'«l pliotojiraphs which liavf Jni-n drdicatotl to the piililio l>y n'p»'at«'d nah's, and may tlii-n-forr Im" copied fn-t-ly hy any p«'rson and hy any procesa. "In my opinion tliis position can not 1h> suco'ssfully assaih'd. No •pu'Stion und«T tin- hiw t>f tradf- niarks or t!u- law of unfair competi- tion is now involved. Tlicse carils arc uot trae the author's exclu- sive pr«»perty. after it has heen jirinted and offered to tlie juiMic for sale. No authorities need lie cited for so plain a projiosition. The copyri(;lit statutes Wfiuhl have Is-en unnecessary if the author had I»een aide to protect the fruit of his mental efforts in any other way; and, if he declines or omits to avail hiiniM'lf of tile jirotection thus pro- vided, he is conclusiv»-ly jiresumed to have pres<'nted to the puhlic the ])rodu(t of his creative juiwers, al- thou;,'li he may have had no inten- tion of making; such a nitt. No doulit a photo;rrapli mif;ht he adopted as a trademark to distin- ;:uish a manufactured article; liiit. how a photo;.'rap)i. if it he also a work of art and tlu-refore ca- pahle iioty a competition wliifh is malii'ious ami unfair. " -" It is tho ^I'lK'ral nilo that a iiotii'o wariiiii}; the public or spccitio dealers or users of a suit for patent infringement is not actionable unbss it appears that the notices were not pivcn in ^ood faith, or that they were t'litirely without founda- tion in the scope of the defendant's patent.'-' The determiim- tion of the question of hona fules in the niakiii;:: of such threats is obviously of j^reat difficulty at times. "The INI-'KINGBMKNT. [§ 159 crully be (IcteiiuiiH'd by tlic extrinsic; I'jicts."-- The coiif iiiiifd circulation of llircats, couph'd witb faibirc to \)v\\i^ a suit to (Ictorininc tlir (iin'stions of llic validity of tlic jialnit and its alk'f^rd iiifriii^'ciiiciit arc jointly consicb'rcd as controllinj,' evi- dence thai tlic threats arc not u\i\(\r in jro<»d faith.-'' § 159. Private actions for damages under the federal anti- trust acts.— The Shri-nian act (.Inly L'. ls!)(), 2b Stat. I;. 209. ch. b47) provides: "§7. Any ixM-son \\ho sliall be injured in liis business or l)ro|>erty by any othci- pci-son or corporation by reason of anything; f()rl)iddcn or declared to be unlawful by this act. may sue therefor in any Circuit Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, with- out respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover three-fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." The cases arising under this section, so far as reported, are less than 60 in number, and but a small percentage have resulted in judgments for the plaintiff. But the section has been interpreted and enforced according to its terms, both as to entry of judgment for treble the amount of the verdict, and the addition of an amount fixed l)y the trial court as a reasonable attorney's fee.^^ The right of action depends upon the fundamental question whether the acts complained of come within the condemnation of the act.2f' Next it must appear that the plaintiff has been injured in person or property by reason of the illegal eon- tract or combination. 2*' The following plaintiffs have been held entitled to main- tain the action. One who has, by reason of the agreement and combination of th(> defendants. bciMi coiii])elled to jiay an 22— Wallace. J., in Adriance. in;: 11') F.d. Rep. 27; ".2 ('. C. A. Plrtt & Co. V. National Harrow r.21 ; 03 L. H. A. :.S. Co.. r^g C. C. A. lfi.3; 121 Fed. Rep. 2;")— Whit well v. Continental To- 827. 82*1 (C. C. A. 2). liacco Co.. 12.') Fed. Rep. 4:>4 ; HO 2.3— Electric Renovator Mi^. Co. C. C. A. 200; 04 L. R. A. 080. V. Vacuum Cleaner Co., ISO Fed. 20 — Monarch Tohacco Works v. Rep. 7ri4. American Tobacco Co., 165 Fed. 24 — Monta^nic & Co. v. T.owry. Rep. 774. 193 U. S. 38; 48 L. Ed. 608; alTirm- § 159] HOPKINS ON Tll.\l)KMARKS. 376 wiireusonabU' aiul cxri'ssivr piicf for mcrcliaiulist'-" or freight;-'' ii mtpricf liook dfalfr wlio was iiiiaMc to buy hi)oks because of tbe uf^rei'inent of the publisliors' association not to sell to price-cutters;-'" one who was unable to buy window glass of the (juality and grade necessary to supply his customers, and thereby lost trade and custom;'"' a munic- ipal corporation forced to pay an excessive price for iron pipe ;•'" a corporation not actually cnl. i/ations, instituted for tin- |iurpo(M>s 20 — Mint's V. St-rilintr. 147 Fttl. "f nuitvuil lnl|>. aiitl not havinp Rop. 027 capital stock or conducted for 30 — Wlu'clcr-Stcnzcl Co. v. Na- profit, or to forbid or restrain indi- tloDal Window Glass Assn., ir)2 vidual meinliers of such orpaniza- Fed. Rep. 804; 81 C. C. A. C'lS; 10 tiona from lawfully carrvinf; out L. R. A. (\.S.) 072. <1<<' lefjitiniate olijeets thereof; nor 31— Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe sliall siich ..r-^ani/.atituis, or the Works V. Atlanta. 203 V. S. 300; niemlx-rs thereof, be held or con- .-,1 I^. Kd. 241. strued to be illegal eonbinations or 32 — rennsylvania Su^-ar Kef. Co. conspiracies in restraint of trade, V. American Su}.'ar Kef. ('».. \f>(> under the antitrust laws." Fed. Hep. 2'»4. '^I — Atlanta v. Chattanoopa 33— IxMWe V LawK.r, 208 U. S. Foundry & Kipeworks, 127 Fed. Rep. 274; r>2 I.. Kd. 4H8. Con^'resfl waa 23; 01 C. C. A. 387; 04 L. R. A. fairly prompt in atti-mptin;.' to re- 721. lirve labor uniniiH from any liability 3.'.— l.oewe \ l.awlor. \M) Fed. i»f this kind in the fuliire. The Clay Hip. 033. t<»n Act pr«ivi7 \ ict., V. Cu, 8 77; 2- -'!'ra I.. IM. ."..')(>. 810; fMKwlfrllf.w v. Prinrr, I>. U. .'5 — I^cidcrHdorf v. Flint. S ]\'inB. 35 Ch. D. ». •J27, r« validity of the Art (»f Issl was " fairly dtuibiriil. ' ' ' In tlio same rase, the I'liitt'd States Suprciiic (Oiirl expressly (leeliiied to pass u|)ou the (piostion of eoiistitutioiialitN'.'' S(j tlie Aet of 18S1. more limited in its seo|»e, and essen- tially a mere retristration aet, has been superseded by an aet of mueh wider seo|)e, while as yot the power of eon^rress to create any enactment whatever relative to the re^'istration of tradtMnarks was not only nndetormined, bnt clonded l)y the doubt expressed in the lanjzua^'e of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit. The labor performed t»y that couii in the dovelojiment of the law of unfair competition entitles its dic- tum' to high resj)eet ; and because of the doubt which that court haalt witli as 7— IMinoiH Watch Chbc Co. v. fiO.'. ««J7 : «.'> h. Ed. .16.'). .\n subjects of interstate conunci-cc is curiously distiutruishcd from poli- cies of fire aiul mai-iuo iusuranco by tho supremo court; but the lau^Mia^M- wliicli tliat li-ibuual lias more than once employed in referciu'c to iusui'aucc ))olici(^s is instructive as indicatitif; its probable attitude toward trademarks. Thus in one of the later insurance cases, ^Ir. Jiistice McKenna says : "The contract of insuraiu'e is not an instrumentality of commerce. The makiiifr of such a contract is a mere incicbuit of conimerci;il inter- course." " The distinction between lottery tickets and insurance pol- icies is one which has not only baffled the layman, but aroused much discussion between members of the bar: but in the lan- jruapre of the suj^reme court in the lottery cases, and in the insurance cases, the court has uniformly held that nothinpr which is not an instrumentalit\' of commerce can come within the purview of the interstate commerce clause of the consti- tution. In ^yiUwm!i v. Fenrft. 170 V. ?5. 270. 45 L. Ed. ISH. IMr. Thief Justice Fuller has emphasized "the difference between interstate commerce or an instrumentality thereof on the one side, and the jnere incidents which may attend the carrying on of such com- merce on the other." It would seem clear that the sharpest attack upon the con- stitutionality of the present act would be alonjr the line of the cases referred to. and if the court determined as a mat- ter of fact, that trademarks were mere incidents attendinpr the carrying: on of interstate commerce, it would necessarily follow that the present act. as well as its predecessor, has been founded upon a misconception of the jurisdiction of con- press. Without weiirhiiifr the arjrument. or pursuinjr it in the li*rht of other decisions of the supreme court, such as those which relate to bills of ladinjr and the like, and without ven- 9 — New York Life Insurance Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 38fM01 ; 44 L. Ed. 1116. §163] UOI'KINS ON TRADEMARKS. 382 tiiriii^' a jxTsorial o|iiiiioii upon tlio merits (tf the ar;;um(Mit. it will sutlii'O to say that the present act is of extremely tloubtful eoiistilutionality. and that sec. 17. ^Mvill^' jurisdic- tion to certain eoui'ts over trademarks r(>tristered in accord- ance with tiie ]iro\ isions of the act. without I'c^'ard to the amount in controversy (a provision incorporated from sec. 7 of the Act of ISSl) offers the opportunity of readily raising the constitutional question. It is manifestly desirable that the question should be raised and finally disposed of in the near future, that it may be definitely settled. This arfrument is stibstantinlly embodied in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representa- tives durinpr the Forty-sixth Conp^ress. as a result of the de- liberations of that eommittee upon a resolution to amend the constitution, and a proposed ])ill for Avhieh the Act of 1881 was sid)sequently substituted. The proposed amendment to the constitution is embodied in the committee's report, a por- tion of which is as follows: "The bill seeks to re-enact sub- stantially the trademark lepri.slation of 1870 (Rev. Stat., sees. 49:17-4047. inclusive) save that it is confined to forei<;n and interstate commerce. Its theory is that by thus separatinp them from interstate commerce the objections of the supreme court as to constitutionality will })e removed. "The resolution to amend tin- constitution is as follows: " ARTICLE X\l. "Section 1. Congress for promotion of trade and manufac- ture, and to carry into effect international treaties, shall have power to jrrant, protect, and re^rulate the exclusive rijrht to adopt and use trademarks. "It is based Jipon the idea that such le^'islation, thouirh confined to foreipn and interstate commerce, is uru-onstitti- tional. or its advocates may only fear that that may be so. and wish the amendment rr (ihiouJntitr cnutela. and to pive confidence to those usinp trademarks. "If the Conpress of the Tainted States now has power to pass such laws, the amendment \vo\dd be useless. Has it that power? 383 REGISTKATION. [§ 163 "After careful ('onsideration wo arf <»i" lli*' ((pinion tliat it lias Mof. The sui)reni(' comi-I in the forc^'oin^' opinion avoided det'idin{^ that (pu'stion. A ti'adciiiark is a convenience of com- merce. Its pur])ose is to idcnlily the thiiif,' to be sold. "Hut it is no more than the j,'uaranty in \vritin<.', or hy some ■words, si^n, or device, attaclied to the thin^ to he sold, that it is what the seller represents it to be by such writing, etc. By themselves they are not merchandise. Their only use is to attach to merchandise for such identification. They are not necessary to commerce. On the countless thinfi^s sold in this country, forei};n and domestic, there are no trademarks but on about 8.000. "In Paul V. Virginia ( )I'KINS ON TIIADKM \KKS. 384 havo saiil. t ijuh-marks an" imt lu't-i'ssary to siu-li coiuinorce. Hut evi'ii if tlu'v uort*. our opinion woiiltl be uni'li.in^'cd. In tho case of Stffft'us, (jUott'd al)ovi'. tlio court said: " "It is not t'vrry spofit's of property, wliicli is tlio sub- joi't of connui'm'. or wliicli is used oi- even essential in eora- nieree. whiidi is l>ri>u^'bt by this »dausi' of the constitution (^cttUMuerce idause ) witliin the control of coufrress. The barrels and casks, tiic bottles and l)oxcs in which alone certain articles of connnerce arc kept for safety, and by \vhi»-h their contents are transferred from the seller to tho buyer, do not thereby become subjects u\' conjrressional ic'.'islation more than other I)roperty.' "lint while we tliink (•onsl is of but little, if any, value, except for the purpose of creating a permanent record of the date of adoption nnd use of the trach'mark, or in cases where it is necessary to give jurisdiction to the I'nited States 10 — Con. Record. Vol. 10, jmrt '2. jol . TliaddiniH DavidH Co. v. DavidB, p. i.'-.u. 2:\:\ V. s. 4(U; :.a l. im. ion;. 11 — Sif UoHHtnuiui V. CariiiiT, 12 — Sec Appi-ndix K. 128 r. r. A. 7:»; 211 l-Vd. lU-p. 13— HihlMiii v. W.nv.r, l.l.T Fod. R.p fi07. 385 REGISTRATION. [§164 courts."'' As a^'iiiiist ;i citizen ui tlic same state, a re^jis- traiit iindci- that act liiid not even the rif^'ht to sue in a court of the I'liitcd States, nnK'.s.s it couhl he sliown that hoth the orij,Mnal and inri'in^rint; marks were hcinf^ used in coiuriierce with t'orci^Mi nations oi- the Indian ti-ihcs.''* The certiticate oi' registration is oidy prima facie evidence of ownershij) of tlie trademark registered, and is not conclu- sive or binding upon the courts as to the right of a party to its exclusive use.*" No right is created by the registration of a generic name,'" nor by the registration of a mark unrestricted as to form or color, as "a colored streak applied to or woven in a wire rope." '** Obviously, a trademark applied to a patented article dur- ing the life of the patent, can not be saved, by registration, 14 — Iltiim'asy v. Brauschweiger & Co., Sit Fod. Rep. OfU-diiS. Quoted and followed in Sh-epy Kye Mill- ing Co. V. C. F. lilanke Tea & Coffee Co., 83 Off. Gaz. in05. To the same effect see Einstein v. Saw- hill, 65 Off. Gaz. 1918; Sherwood V. Horton, Cato & Co., 84 Off. Gaz. 2018. 1.-)— llyder V. Holt, 128 U. S. 525; 32 L. F(l. 520; Luyties v. llollender, 22 Blatchf. 4'13; Schumacher v. Schwenke, 26 Fed. Rep. 816; Gravely V. Gravely, 42 Fed. Rep. 205; Prince's Metallic Paint Co. v. Prince ]Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 493. 16 — Hennessy v. Braunschwei- ger, supra : Brower v. Boulton, 53 Fed. Rep. 389; Glen Cove Mfg. Co. V. Taideling. 22 Fed. Rep. 824-S26. In the latter case Judge Wal- lace observed : '"The act of con- gress makes the registration of the mark only prima farir evi- dence of ownersliip. § 7. The inquiry is therefore always open as to the validity of the title to a trademark evidenced hy th*; reg- istration. Tlie registration could not confer a title to tiie trademark upon tiie complainant if some oth- er corporation or individual had acquired a prior right by adoption and use; nor could it vest defend- ant with a title as against the complainant's common law title. In this view the only office of a registration is to confer jurisdic- tion upon the court to protect a trademark when tlie proprietor has obtained the statutory evi- dence of title, and the only func- tion of the commissioner of pat- ents is to determine whether an applicant has a presumptive right to tiie trademark." To the same effect see D«itsch v. Geo. R. GiI)Son Co., 155 Fed. Rep. 383. 17 — Licbig's Extract of Meat Co. v. Walker, 115 Fed. Rep. 822-826. IS — A. Leschen &. Sons Rope Co. V. Broderick & Bascora Rope Co., 134 Fed. Rep. 571; 67 C. C. A. 418; 201 r. S. 166; 50 L. Ed. 710. §165J IIOIKINS ON Tll-KDEMARKS. 386 from becoming' jiuhlui juris \\\m>\\ the rxpiraliuu ul" the pat- ent. '» The cfrtifu'ati' of rcj^ist ration is only prima fmic evidence of an aihnission on the part of the ^rovernnient that the appli- cant for ret?istration is the owner of a valid trademark, is not a prant of any ri^ht or privih'^je, and tloes not, therefore, conclude a third party;-" hut it is eonelusive as a^ijainst the registrant, as limit inj; and restrietin^r what he can claim as his trademark.-' Notwithstanding' its rejjistration under the act. the trademark of an insolvent will be conveyed by a general assi. 21— K«)lil12\ RiclitN. [§ 1G5 nation. To tolerate this would he to 2 Fed. Rep. 4.").!, 4.")8; affirmed 0.") Ky. fi.ll : 27 S. W. Rop. 247. under the style of Riclitcr v. Rey- 28— L. H. Harris Drup Co. v. nolds, 8 C. C. A. 220; .■>0 Fed. Rep. Stucky, 4() Fed. R.-p. (i24. 62.".. .'577. 20— P. C. Weist Co. V. W.M-ks, 2fi— PittslnirfT Crushed Steel Co. 177 Pa. 412; 3.') Atl. Rep. G03. V. Diamond Steel Co., 8-5 Fed. Rep. 637, 638. § 166] HOI'KINS t>N TU.VPKMARKS. 388 tlioin. to givo sunU'it'iit notice to the puhlio that the same is putrntod; iMtlior hy tixiiijj tluTeon tho word pati'iitod,' topethor with tho day ami year the patent was {jrranted; or when, from the character of tlie article, this can not be done, hy lixinj^ to it. or to the jiacUji^'c wherein (»ne or more of then) is enclosed, a lahel containinj; the like notice; and in any snit for infrin^'cMuent. by the party failinji: so to nuirk. no danuifres shall be recovered by the plaintiff, except on proof that the defendant was didy notified of the infrin^rement, and continued, after such notice, to make. use. or vend the article so patented." Under the latter section. ]\lr. .lust ice (li-ay has said "one of these two thinjrs. nuirkinjr the artii-les, or notice to the infrinjrers, is made by the statute a prerequisite to the pat- entee's riprht to recover damages a}rainst them. Each is an afTlrmative fact, and is something? to be done by him. • • • |^y the elementary jiriiu'iples of jjleadinfj, therefore, the duty of alleprinfr. and the burden of proving either of these facts is upon the plaintiff."'"' Therefore, by repristration under the Act of IBOf). the reg- istrant has this burden imposed .upon him. §166. Interferences, The rules established by the decis- ions of the i)atent office in relation to interferences \inder the Act of ISSl are of value in like jiroceedinfrs under the pres- ent Act. See, 8 of the Act of ISSl jirovided that "In an aj^pli- cation for repistration the commissioner of patents shall de- cide the presumjitive lawfulness of claim to the allcfjed trade- mark ; and in any dispute ])etween an applicant and a pre- vious refristrant. or between applicants, he shall follow, so far as the same may be applicable, the jiractice of courts of erpiity of the United States in niialofr2 V. S. f". v. T.ntnl.irt riinrmnool Co., 103 244. 24R; 38 ].. VA. 420. 427. OIT. Ca/. 2172. S.m- 8 7. Act of 100.^.. .11 — .«?hrrwoo— Aucrhaoli & Sons v. Hall & Haywanl Co.. Ill Off. Caz. 800. Hayward Co.. Ill O. G. 800. 34 — Manitowoc Mf<;. Co. v. Dick- 37 — Carey v. New Home Se\vin;r crman, .'57 Off. Gaz. 1721, Machine Co., 101 Off. Gaz. 44? § 169] norKiNs on tkadkmakks. 390 An interforpMco in fact exists where the marks are so sim- ilar as to be ealenlatetl to deceive the pulilic, and are used iipon elasses of jroods so closely related that when hearing the same mark one would suppose that they arc the product of the same manufacturer.''** Cancellation. — Si-ction l;{ of tiie Act of VJOf) provides "That where any person siiall deem himself injured hy the registration of a tradcnuirk in the Patent Oflice he may at any time apply to the Commissioner of Patents to cancel the repistration thereof.** This provision applies only to registrations untler the Act of lOO'i.''" The petition for cancellation must .show that the petitioner has been injured.^" The Patent Office has no authority to cancel a certificate of registration except under sec. i:j.-" Oppositions. — Section 6, Act of 1005, provides that any person who believes he would be damaged hy the registration of a mark may oppo.se that registration. Section 7 provides for notice to the ap|>licant. The notice of opposition must allege facts show- ing an interest on the part of the opposer from which danuige may be inferred.'- The applicant may plead "••'' or demur** to the notice of opposition. 38— H. A. CorlMii & Son v. Mill 42 — Undorwood Tj-powriter Co. V. er, Kol lliei»[). Cries.. & Co.. !»8 Off. A. B. Dick Co., KW Off. Caz. 730. C'a7.. H.^r.. 43— I)«'it8cli v. Loon.n. 141 Off. 30— Funk.- V. Hai.lwiii. 1-27 Off. (^a/,. llf.l. «;az. 3!t2. 44 — \V. A. Caiii.-s & Co. v. Kiicoht 40— K. Mrllli.-nny'K S..n« v. N.w & Son. 120 Off. C.nz. 11(53. For IImtiu (ii.. 1.'{3 ( nr. C.a/. no.'i. j)rartici' in opposition proceedings 41— Caw V. Oiiirk, \:U\ Off. (la/.. s.'e not.'s. §8 (>, 7. Act of 1905, Ap- l.^>31. For |»ractic.' in canci-llation pendix E, post. proc<'«* some of the states the courts have exhibited a willingness to furnish redress for this species of fraud, in others this indication is lacking. The prospective plaintiff will choose between the state and federal courts, where federal jurisdiction exists, with a view to selectinpr the one in which the law of the sub- ject is well settled, and in which the uisi priiis judge has not exercised his inventive genius in devising excuses for fraud. The plaintiff may be able to invoke the criminal process of the state courts, under a particular statute. A search war- rant may be obtainable under such an act, and aid in the prep- aration of a subsequent civil suit. The nature of the unfair competition may be such as to warrant the filing of informa- tion with the Federal Trade Commission. "Wliere federal jurisdiction exists, by reason of registration of the trademark infringed, or by reason of diversity of cit- izenship (the amount in controversy being sufficient), the action is usually brought in the federal court, and by bill in equity. Ilenee this chapter will be devoted largely to a consideration of federal practice and procedure in the class of cases under discussion. §171. Jurisdiction of United States district couri;s.— Sec. 7 of the Act of ISRl provides that courts of the United States shall have original and appellate jurisdiction in cases involv- ing a registered trademark, without recrard to the amount m controversy. Tt has been held in this connection (prior to the statutes of 1887 and 1898. which raised the "amount in con- troversy" necessary to federal jurisdiction from $:'iOO to it:2.000'i that the federal courts were not limited in their trademark jurisdiction to cases in which the defendant's profits had exi 391 §171] HOPKINS ON TKADKMAUKS. IW2 ceoiloil five huiulrcil ilollars.' Aiul a latrr decision has held tliut "Tho statuti' of K'^Sl. wliich drives them (i. c, owners of rcpistered tradi'iuarUs) the lijrht to eonuneiice u suit with- out allefrint; the anioiiiit in eontroversy, was not repealed l)y the statutes of 18S7 and 1888. whieh make it necessary, in order to pive jurisdiction to the United States Circuit Court, that the amount involved he two tiiousand dollars."-' The Judicial Code. sec. 24. made the amount $.'}.000; the circuit court is abolished. In cases where there is diverse citi/enship it does not appear to he necessary to allepo that the plaintiff uses his trade- mark on poods intended for commerce with foreipn nations or with the Indian tribes; hut it has been held that the fed- eral courts have no jurisdiction in a trademark action be- tween citizens of the same state unless the pleadings affirm- atively show that the complainant uses his trademark on poods interuled for commerce with forcipn nations or witii the Iiulian tribes.-"' It was necessary, under the Act of 1881, where both parties were citizens of the same state, to aver that the defend- ant had applied the simulated nuirk to goods intended to be used in such foreign conimerce. or trade with tiie Indian tribes.' although the reasoning of one of the cases tended to show that logically no such averment in the pleadings is necessary.-' It was not necessary to show that (Mther party had used the mark in c(Munu*rce with foreign nations or with the Indian tribes; where the parties were of diverse citi/enship.'' Of course, in eases involving the i-iglit to an unregistered trademark, jurisdiction can only be ac(|uired by the federal courts because of the diverse citizenship of the parties." and the amount in controversy, which must be over ^iVOOO exclu- l—SymnndtJ v. On't-nc, 28 Fed. faiytios v. TTolloiuliT, 27 Blntrlif. Rr.p. «.34. n.}. 2— rjlotin V. OHwald, «.'•, F.d, H.p. 1— Ornvclv v. rJrnv.ly, r.2 Off. l.'.l: Oiirliin.l A IlnlHton. F.dcrni Haz. l.'i.lft: 42 Fod. Rop. 2nr»; War- Prartiri-. I 122; Hcnm-Bsy v. TIcrr- ni-r v. S.-arlo »1 TTin-tli Co., 101 V. mann. m Fi-d. Rop. noo. S. Ift.'i; 4R L. Fd, 14:.. 3_Rvdor V. TTolt. 12R T'. S. .'i2.'); ry— Clcn Covo Mfj:. Co. v. I.ndcl 32 L. Kd. .120; r.len f'ovp Mfjr. Co. inp. 22 Fod. R.p. 823. V. I.nd<'lin;». 22 Fi'd. Rrp. R2.1; A — HmncBHy v. Rrnunpohwoipor Hravfly v. Cravily. r.2 Off. f!az. A To., 89 Fed. Rip. 0(14. l.-i-IH; 42 F.d R.-p. 2n.''>; SclnimiirlHT 7— Until.' v. Finlay. .Mi l-'.- \\i> ntocKDrui;. (§1^1 sive of interest and eosts ; as to tiadcinarks, their jiirisdir- tion is concurrent with that of the state (-((nrts, JJy virtue of the Aet of ('on; 160 U. S. 221; 40 L. Ed. 402; Gar- Market Co. v. HofTnian, 101 U. S. land & Ralston, Federal Practice, 112; 2.') L. Ed. 782; Symonds v. § 161. Creene, 28 Fed. Rep. 834; Whitman n— Burt V. Smith, 71 Fed. Rep. v. IIuLlx-ll, 30 Fed. Rep. 81. 161. To the same effect see Gold- 11 — Symonds v. Greene, 28 Fed. stein V. Whelan, 62 Fed. Rep. 124; Rep. 834; Hennessy v. Herrmann, Luyties v. Hollender, 30 Fed. Rep. 80 Fed. Rep. 660. 632. 12— Archhald, .T., in Draper v. Skerrett (2), 116 Fed. Rep. 206, 207. §171] HOPKINS t>N TKAnF.MAKKS. n94 This must ho spocilii'ally plcadi'd. bccjuiso "tlic r('(|uisitp vnliio of tin' innttiM- in coiitrtiviM'sy is a jurisdictional i'ai't, and it must norcssiirily he avorrod in the (l<'clarati(»n or hill. There are no presumptions in favor of the jurisdiction of the federal courts, as they are specially constituted with juris- diction in certain cases: and the facts upon which it rests must appear in some form in the record of all suits prosecuted before them. They have no jurisdiction except such as the stat\ite confers." '•' Thus where a tradename (not a technical Iradomark) is alleped to be of a certain value, but there is no averment that the defendant's acts will, unless restrained, tend to destroy it or put its value in jeopardy, the hill is demurrable." When the i)arties are citizens of different states, so that the case comes within the freneral prant of jurisdiction in the first part of the Act of March 3, 1887, the defendant, by enter- ing a general ai)i)earance in a suit brought against him iu a district of which he is not an inhabitant, waives the right to object that it is brought in the wrong district.'.'' But a corporation, by doing business or appointing a general agent in a district other than that in which it is created, does not waive its right, if seasonably availed of, to insist that the suit should have been brought in the latter district."' 13 — narland & Uiilston, FcdiTul Practice, 8 122. 14 — "Tlu' d<'murrcr raisoa also a qucHtion fif jurindiction. Tlu- liill all<*);f8 tliat comitlainnnt'a tradc- namc, 'Winchester,' is worth in t'Xci'BS of $r),lHK), Itiit makcH no charjji* as to tlic amount •)f pn-scnt or proHjM'ctivc dama;;»' to coni |ilainant ariwint; out of dffmdant'rt action, <'xc('i)tin^ tin- Btatrmenta that dcfcndant'H a. Kd. 1(12. This reverses the ruling in (!rav V. TaperSIo<'ve Pulley Works, 395 COURTS, PARTIES AND I'KOCEDURB. [§ 172 The Court of Appeals ol" the District of C'oliiiiibia had no jurisdiction of trademark cases under see. 3 of the law of 1881."' Federal jurisdiction in cases of imf.iir competition must of course be predicated ui)on the ^'cim ral iMiIes fixing the juris- diction of the federal courts, so that those courts can not entertain such an action arising between citizens of the same state except in so far as the resi)ondcnt's wrongful acts affect commerce with foreign nations or the Indian tribes; at least that is the exjiress holding of the Circuit C'ourt of Apj)eals for the Seventh Circuit.''' While federal jurisdiction attaches to a suit between cit- izens of the same state based upon infringement of a trade- mark registered under the Act of 1905, a charge of unfair competition joined therewitli can not be entertained if the case fails as to the trademark, and that part of the bill will be dismissed.'-' But if the jurisdiction thus acquired is not lost by reason of the charge of infringement of the trademark failing, the court will have jurisdiction to enjoin "all wrong- ful acts in connection with the infringement which augment and aggravate tlie wrong."-" § 172. Jurisdiction of the state courts.— The state courts have a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the federal courts in trademark cases.^i It may, at times, be advisable for a 1(5 Fed. Rep. 430-443, wiierc it was 20— Van Valk('iil.nr<;h. .1.. in held that the service of an aprent of Jacoway v. Youn;,', 22S Fed. Rep. a foreign corporation was hindinp, (130, (i33 the infrinjjiment having been perpe- 21 — Small v. Sanders, 118 Ind. trated in the district where the ac- 10."); 20 X. E. Rep. 20(5. It is well tion was instituted. settled law that the jurisdiction of 17 — Einstein v. Sawhill, fif) Off. state and federal courts over suits Ciaz. 1018. for infriufrement of trademarks is 18_lllinois Watch Case Co. v. concurrent. The act of March 3. Eln'8si<)n p-mTally (lonotiii;; nny iiwd in tliiH cliaptcr inchidcH every ;.'()ods of some partieiilnr clnsfl or (leiwription of word, letter, device, deHcription or tlie desi;rnntion or emtdem, HtHmj), imprint, liriind, name for iniy mill, Imtel, factory printed ticket, liiliel or \vrHj)per or other lniMines!*." § 'M\(\, IVnal nMiially nfllxed l>y any mechanic, Code of New York, ISO.'J; .Montana niamifactiirer. dH 2.1 — Whittier v. Diet/. Oft Cal. 7H. to Ix? imported, manufactured, pro- Thi« exc«'ption to the rule Iuih ninoo dtici-d. compounded or nidil hy him, I n n-moved hy Htututory enact* other than any name, word or ex- merit. 397 COURTS, I'AUTiKs .\M> I'lcocKinKio. [§ 17:J report of 1915, writti'ii as Coiiiniissioiici- of ('orj)oratioi).s, lai't^cly to ail oxliaiistivc review of liow the term "unfair coinpetilioii " and ollici- similar terms "have lieeii ajijjlied by ccononiie writers and by l)usiiiess men," and has stated tliat the term "unfair methods of eomijctition" is probably incap- able of exaet detinition in hiief terms.^^ The proceeding's of the commission are instituted by the commission itself. The action is entitled "Federal Trade Com- mission V. (the defendant)," and the rules adopted by the com- mission i)rovide that the party seeking to have a complaint issued shall make an application therefor in writing, contain- ing a short and simjile statement of the facts constituting the alleged offense, and giving the names and addresses of the eonijilaining party and the party complained against. The application is not served U])on the defendant, who instead is served \\\\h tlie complaint drawn by the commission. The commission is then in the position of a prosecuting officer, who issues the comj^laint in his own name as complainant, and ])roceeds to tiy the cause himself. The rules provide that an answer to the complaint shall be made Avithin thirty days after sei'vice, which service may be had either by personal service or by registered mail. It will be noted on examining the rules (printed in the appendix of this book) that the defendant must answer; indeed, a provision for a demurrer would seem to be idle when the complaint is drawn by the same high authority that is to try the issues. Does this uni ON TR.\l>i:.MAKK>. 398 I'ial C'oiU\ The orders of tin- (•(niiiiiissitui can be ciiforced only by the I'irruit I'ourt of iippnils. tj 174. The elements whereon jurisdiction must be predi- cated. Lord Chancellor Hrjidy. in the Irish lli-:)! Court of Cliam-ory. in ]>!);{. speaking of tradcnuirk causes, .said: "In sueh splits, in order to found the jiirisdietion of tlii.s court, there nuist be established, first, the existence of the trademark; next, the fact of an imitation, whether a direct imitation, or one with such variations that the <'ourt must rejjard them as merely colorable: and thirdly, the fact that the imitations were made without license, or anything: that this court could repard as ac(piiescence in tlieir use."-' Mr. Sebastian refers to the remark of Vice-chancellor Bacon, in Kn^dand. that "the law of Scotland does not in this respect differ from the law of England" ■-'• (referring to tradenuirks). as establishing, in conjunction with the above dic'ta of the learned Irish chan- cellor, the fact that the jurisdictioiuil princii)les in the three kingdoms are the .same.-" The Supreme Court of New York has held it error to dismiss a eomjilaint ujion the jileadinps and the openin": of counsel where the comi)laint showed the ownershi|) of a tol)acco sample ticket used in trade by the jtlaintiffs. aiul the wrongful use of an imitation thereof by the defendants.-'^ Vov rt'asons discussed elsewhere, it is not neces- sary to confer jurisdiction that it be allefred that any one has in fact been misled or deceived by the use of the simulated mark. P>ut the |)lcadinr. the eoiisinner. it was i)roper to aver the fact that the infrinpcUM'tit was calculated to deceive the consumer,-'' and 2.'» — Kiiialiiin v. Hidton. I'. Ir. Cli. 20 — Dnmininiid Tohaoco Co. v. 7.'i-70. Sc*' alwt Tlii-flfonl Mulicin.- 'I'lnslcy Tf>l)no<'o Co., .')2 Mo. App. ('(I. V. Curry. !•(] C.a. H!i. H». 2.'.. Tlic c;; (.'I), hiiiii III' ciitiHidiTi-d almost oxriusively 27 — S<'l»aMtian, TradcniarkH ( Hli in determining; tlu> question of in- Kd. t , 170. frin;;i-mirit. lii-rauw, in tlw case of 28 — I.indi- v. liinMil. 22 Hun, (2!t mi attempted deceptinn, lio is snh- N. Y. Sup. Ct. ), <)()!. htantially tin- only parly likely to 399 COURTS, I'ARTIICK AND l'ItOCEa)i;KK. §175 it is probably always a better course to aver tliat tiie imita- tion is caU'iilated to deceive the ultimate purchaser. The real and simulated marks should be submitted with the bill of complaint or accurately described in appropriate terms, the main test of the allefi^ed resemblance beintj inspec- tion by the court;*''" with the qualification that the resem- blance need not be such as to deceive persons seeing the two marks side by side.''^ § 175. The parties plaintiflf. — The action to prijtect a trade- mark may be brought by its owner or a licensee.'*^ The better rule ajipears to be that the owner of the trademark or trade- name is a necessary ])arty. Thus the exclusive eonsifrnees of goods bearing trademarks belonging to a foreign consignor were held not entitled to maintain suit for infringomont with- out l)ringing in the consignor as a party plaintiff; •'^'' although the owner of a tradename which he had assigned the right to use for a term of years was adjudged capable of maintaining an action for injunction against its infringement without join- ing his assignees.'" Trusts, constructive, implied or expressed, may arise,''"' in whicli case tlie name of the trustee would be necessary in all suits at law affecting the legal title to the trademark, and it would bo his duty at all times to protect lie (li'ccivcd."" Citin;^ Sykcs v. Sykea, 3 B. & Cr. 541; Farina v. SilviTloc-k, 1 K. & J. 500; Rose v. Loftus, 47 L. J. Cli. 570; Singer ]\IfM:. Co. V. Loo- (.3), 18 Ch. D. nn5-412. 30 — Drummond Tobacco Co. v. Tinslcy Tol)acco Co., 52 Mo. App. 10, 26. 31 — McCann v. Anthony, 21 Mo. App. 83 ; Drummond Tobacco Co. V. Tinslcy Tobacco Co., 52 ^lo. App. 10. 32— Kidd V. Johnson, 100 U. S. f)17; 25 L. Ed. 700; Kidd v. Mills. 5 OfT. Gaz. 337. Where there is an exclusive licensee he must be made a party, or no injunction can issue Wallach v. Wigmore, 87 Fed. Rep. 469. 33— Richards v. Butcher, 02 L. T. 867. 34 — Warwick Tyro Co. v. New ^fotor Co. (1010), 1 Ch. 248. 3.-)— /» re Mitchell, L. R. 28 Ch. D. fiOO. Thus where the use of a trademark is improperly obtained by one mem1)er of a partnership for his own use, he beinf; bound to obtain it for the partnership, he is held to be the trustee of the mark for the benefit of the firm. Weston V. Ketcham. 30 X. Y. Sup. Ct. 54. Compare Ex parte Lawrence Bros.. 44 L. T. X. S. 08; 20 W. R. 302: Tti re Rust. 20 W. R. 303; hx re Farina. 20 W. R. 301; The three cases last named are cases in M'hich one partner registered a mark in his own name bv mistake. §175] IIOI'KINS i)N TK AIH.M \HKS. 400 uml ilofoiul llu' title or allow his iiaiiir to be used for that purpose, under the established priiK'ii)les of law atTeetinjjf trusts.'" It is not iieeessary that all the ])arties havinj,' an interest in a trademark join as jiarties j)laintilT. Thus. \'iee-Chau- eellor Shadwell held that survivinj; partners eould nuiintain an aetion for an infrinj;enient of the lirnrs trailenuirks, not- withstanding tlie (iH't that the persoiud representatives of a deeeased ])artner niifzht have some interest in tiiem.-'" Parties liavinj; distinct interests in the devices embodied in an infrinjrinjr lalx-l may join as eomplainants in equity.^" Individuals and corporations having a common interest may join as ])arties complainant in a bill in equity to restrain an unfair competition in trade. Thus in one case we find seven corporations located in the city of ^linneapolis joined in u bill to restrain the fraudulent use of names jjeculiar to their busi- ness and locality, by a dealer in Chicago,^* and the owners of two separate "Hlue Lick Water" springs in Kentucky joined in a bill to restrain the use of the words "Hlue Lick Water" by a third j)arty who liad no right to their use.'*'^ During the period of administration the personal represen- tative of the deeeased owner of a trademark liolds the mark, as we have seen, although it has been held in one case that it may pass without administration.'" Where there is an administratf)r, it is liis duty to defend the trademark from infringement, and he can recover all accrued j^rofits and dam- ages from the infringer, as actions to restrain infringement 36— IVrry, Trusts (4tli <•wiHh rolonization Absh. v. Solf.mon, 12.') Fed. H. .30 — PillHhiiry - WaHhlmrn Flour MilU Co. V. Kaj:!.-. 30 C. ('. A. 380. 86 Fi'd. H«'p. 608. S«'«- alHo ('.ravel Roofers' ExHianp- v. Turnlmll, 61 Off. fJaz. 441. 40_Xortlirutt V. Tiirni V. HH Ky. 314; 41 S. \V. H.p. 21. S.m- bIho Society of ArooiintantH v. Corpora- tion of Apoountanta, 20 Scot. Sobs. Caa. (4th sit.), 7'>0, in which thrn* chartered societies joined in an action to prevent the uw of the letters "C. A." (Chartered Ac- coniitHntH) liy the defendant, those litters liavin;,' lnM-n used only to (IeHi;.'iuite niemlx-rs of the three eonipliiinin;,' soeieties. See also IVatfs Appeal. 117 Pii. St. 401. 41— Pratt's Appeal. 117 Pa. St. 401. StM- Steward v. Kinstein, 64 ()(T. (hi?.. ir>33. 401 COURTS, rVKTIKS AM) n{()( 'KDI ' KK [§175 and rcfovcr profits and dainatxcs arc held not to fomc witliin the rule ticllo personalis mnrilur cum inrsonn.^- 'I'lic owner of real estate and iiiipr-ovements thereon may have sueh a ri^dit in a trademai-k used to identify the prodiiets of his tenants as to entitle him to prevent his tenants from nsin{^ the mark aftei' tli('_\- have removed \u othei- |)remises.'''' One wiio has an exclusive I'ijrht to use a ti"a(h'mark for a limited time may maintain a suit for infrinji^ement.*' Upon tlu' dissolution of a eopartnership, "either member may use the deviecs or symhols, unless he has divested himself of the ri«rht." '•'' Where copartners dissolve partnership, each retaining the rifjht to use the trademarks of the firm, each ean assert his rijrht to the exclusive use of such trademarks as to all per- sons excci)t his associates in ownership."' l>ut in all eases ■where the right to a trademark is vested severally in two or more persons, either of them will be enjoined from adver- tising: or claiming: that he is the "sole proprietor,""*' or that his is the "only {genuine" article.''^ And where title is so held, either of the parties entitled to its use may alone main- tain a suit in etjuity ajrainst an infring:er.^'* 42 — WOciiitr, Administration, §299; Oaki'V v. Dalton, L. R. 3;') Ch. D. 700; .{.-. W. R. 700; Ilateh- ard V. ^U-itv, L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 771; Gibk'tt V. Read. 9 :\Iod. 4:)9 ; Croft V. Day, 7 Boav. 84. 43— Atlantic Milling Co. v. Rob- inson, 20 Fed. Rep. 217 ; Arm- strong V. Kloinliaiis, S2 Ky. SO.*?; Harper v. Pearson. ."5 L. T. X. S. .■)47 ; (armieliael v. Latimer, 11 R. T. 39.-); Motley v. Downman, 3 My. & ("r. 1: Dickson v. MeMaster, 18 Ir. Jur. 202. 44 — One who lias l»y contract a right to furnisli articles l)earing a tradename ("OtTicial American League" l)ase hall), may maintain an action for infringement in his own name; the decree of in junc- tion will be limited in duration to the f)eri(id of tin- contract. A. J. Reach Co. v. Simmons Hdw. Co., ].").-. Mo. App. 412: 13.") S. W. Rep. .•")03. 4."» — Patterson, J., in Baldwin v. \(in Micheroux, 2.") N. Y. Supp. S.")7. To the same effect see Hu- wer V. Dannt-nhoffer. 82 X. Y. 499; Hazard v. Caswell, 93 X. Y. 259. 40 — New York Cement Co. v. Coplay Cement Co., 4.") Fed. Rep. 212. 47 — International Silver Co. v. Simeon L. & George H. Rogers Co., 110 Fed. Rep. 95.-». 48 — Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. Fish Bros. :Mfg. Co.. 87 Fed. Rep. 203. 40— Dent V. Turpin. 30 L. J. Ch. 40.-); Seb. 196. § 176] llttlKlNS ON TKAltKMARKS. 40'2 § 176. The parties defendant. We liavo soon in a previous I'haptor that tlio liability for injiiiu-tinii ajraiiist iiifringomcut t'Xtt'utls to tlu' mamifactiiivr of (iios from wliii-h counterfeits «if the mark are to lie made: and it may aceurat«'ly be said that every one who (b'als with tlie sinudated trademark or the mean.s of produeinjr it will be restrained in ecpiity. In a ease where a temi)orary injunetion had been granted apainst a person sinee deecased. witiutut opposition, and the defendant in his life-time had never moved to vaeate it, it was held in New York that the eause woidd not be continued as ajiainst the administratrix of tlic defendant, because it was not shown tliat the defendant had aequired any rights in the litigation or that any prejudice would result to the estate by not continuing the action.'"^ The question who may be i)arties defendant involves neces- sarily a discussion of some of the principles applied by the co\irts in infringement ]iroeeedings. Where the plaintiff, the sole owner of a mineral spring, leased it to one who adopted a name to indicate its waters, the concessionaire was enjoined at the instance of the owner from applying the luime so used to water from another spring;''^ and in a case where the owner of a spring granted concessions to another conveying the selling privileges in cer- tain countries, the concessionaire was enjoined from inter- fering with the sale in those countries of water from the spring sobl through j^arties other than the coneessionaire.*''- A inatuifacturer may delegate the right to use his trade- mark to sales merchants, giving them that right only so long as they buy goods, of the class to which tiie trademark beli»ngs, from him. rpt>n their ceasing to so purchase their goods they will be enjoined from tlie use of the mark.'''-' A firm of shippers of merchandise who applied the name "Tlie KcystoiK' Line" to vessels llicy did not own. but of which they had the exclusive nuuiagenieiit in loading and unloading, were held to have acquired such an exclusive right 50— RrpnhUr of Pom v. Roovpb, Sih.r.r. 2:? Hlntrlif. 4.')0: 27 F.-d. 40 N. Y. Slip n 310. Rep. IS. .'il— Hill V. I.o.kwood, ;j2 F.Hr>: ("ox. 20: Twcntschc Stoom 001. lU.'fkrry (u.nr v. Klliiijj.T. 2() W. 00 — Carbolic Soap Co. v. Thonip- H. 70. w.n, 2.'> F<-d. Hep. 02"); Rolx-rtfl v. 04— Low v. Hart, 00 X. Y. 457: Slu-ldon, 8 I^HH. .'{(IS; F»'d. Case No. Atkinson v. Atkinson, ft.") L. T. 11910. .ruiir. 22!»; TwcntsHic Stoom 01— SiejjtTt V. Khl.rs. S.li. A:\-1: Hl.ck.ry C.or v. KllinLvr. 20 W. Sioffcrt V. Findlat; AND I'UOCKDfKK. (§177 houseman/'" It is tlic duty of llic hailcc so situated to ^,'ive the owner of the tradeiiuirk lull information in re^'ard to the poods wiiieli are or have been in liis hands by virtue of the bailment, and where lu' refuses so to do, even after the jjoods have <;one beyond his control, it lias been held that a bill will lie a^rainst him to eompel discovery,"** If, (Ml the othei- hand, the bailee p^ives the owner of tlie mark full infoi-mation, he will l)e allowed costs if, notwith- standiiifr his disclosures, ])roceedinjrs are instituted against him."'' The wrongs of which this book treats being torts, and all partici]iants in torts being jJiMueipals. a j)erson who assists in coiubieting an unfair eoniix'tit ion ]>y f\irnishing fraud- ulent jiaekages (u- labels is liable for the injury resulting to the i)laintifl" from the unfaii' ('omi)etition.'" § 177. Forms of action. — The most usual form of civil action to secure redress for trademark piracy in this country is by hill in equity. ]iraying for an injunction, discovery, account of profits, and damages. The remedy at law is })y an action on the ease, for deceit; that form of action being l)oth the form known to the commoii law and that prescribed by the Act of March 8, 1881. An action of deceit may be brought by a purchaser who has been deceived by the vendor of the fraudulent article, but such actions are seldom, if ever, brought, and are prac- tically unheard of. One action in a federal court will lie for the infringement of a patent and the infringement of a trademark, where the trademark and the patent were both infringed together,'* and fiT— ronsardin v. Poto. 33 Boav. 60— Upmann v. Currey, 29 Sol. 642; Hunt v. :Mani.re, 34 Boav. J. 73."); Ui>mann v. Forester, L. R. 157; Del Vallo v. Mayer. Seton 24 Ch. D. 231; Moet v. Pickering, (4th ed.). 230; Sch. .320; Bivero v. L. R. 8 Ch. D. 372; Upniann v. Norris. Seton (4th Ed.K 230; Seb. Elkan, L. R. 12 Eq. 140. 209; Moet v. Piekerinjr. L. R. r. 70— Tlildreth v. Sparks Mfff. Co.. Ch. D. 770: L. R. 8 Ch. D. 372: O't F.>d. Rep. 484. ITpmann v. Elkan. L. R. 12 ¥.<]. 140. 71 — Jaros Underwear Co. v. 68 — Orr v. Diaper, L. B. 4 Cli. Kheee Underwear Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 1). 02. See also Carver v. Pinto 622. See p. 431, post. Leite, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 90: 41 L. J. Ch. 02: 2.T L. T. N. S. 722; 20 W. R. 134. §177] IIOI'KINS ON TRAHEMARKS. 40G tho snmo nilo apiilu's wlicro a puhlication iiirriii^^cs both n tradiMiiark and a cdityrijrlit.'- Ai-cordiii^ly a cliai'j:*' of uiifaii' coniixMitioii may he cinbrai'i'tl ill a l)ill for patent iiil'riiif.'t'intMit.' ' and a sin^rlo hill (»f com- l>laint may (•liar.r \ ll..linim. SJ K.d. Ft:. (."o., SO I', t'. A. :u'^; l.")l 7-> — \Va;:ii.r Tvpiwritcr Co. v. F«>rni«T Stove Co. v. !•'. S. Webster Co., 114 I'ld. Uep. Art Stove Co., 80 C. C. A. 0; IJO 40 J. OTTAPTKR XI. THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION— FEDERAL AND STATE. §178. The Act of 1876. The prosecutions under wliicli the decision styh'd tlie 'I'lddoiuirk Casts^ was roiulered were insti- tuted under the Act of Congress of 1876. Tliis was a penal act ai)j)lieable to infrinfjfers of trademarks ref?istered under the registration act of 1870. Mr. Justice Miller says, in the conclusion of his oj)inion: "While we have, in our references in this opinion, had mainly in view the Act of 1870, and the civil remedy which thai ;ii'1 pi-ovides. it w?s because the criminal offenses described in the Act of 1876 are, by their express terms, solely referable to frauds, counterfeits, and unlawful use of trademarks which were recristered iinder the provisions of the former act. Tf tluit act is unconstitutional, so that the renristration under it confers no lawful riirht. then the criminal enactment intended to protect that rigrht falls with it. "2 After the enactment of the Act of ^larch r{, 1881, some able lawyers inclined to the belief that the Act of 1876 Avas by the passapre of a valid rcfjistration act priven now life. or. as stated by one eminent jurist: "This is not an instance of revival ; for the penal act was not dead, but simply dormant. Its sleep was ended by the birth of the Act of 1881. No words were required in tlio latter to sot tlio penal law in motion. That which is implied in a statute is just as much a part of it as that which is expressed. Nor is it repealed by the civil Act of 1881." --^ This reasoninjr. however, has not been followed by the courts. The i)ro]iosition Avas first submitted to Judfro Thayer, but in his opinion ho expressly refrained from docidiufr it. sustain- inpr demurrers to indictments based upon the Act of 1876 1—100 U. S. 82. .3— Browne, Trademarks (2d ed.), 2— Trademark Cases, 100 U. S. §371. 82-«)9; 25 L. Ed. 550, 553. 407 § 179] IIOI'KINS (»N TH AhKMARKP. 408 Upon other prouiuls.^ Siibs(M|iit'iitly Iho (lucstioii was squarely presented to Mr. .lu.stiee Hrewcr, sitting as eireuit judge, who said in substance: "While the Act of 1H70 was a nullity, it must be assnnuMl as a matter of faet that in franiin},' the Aet of 1876 the i)eiuilties imposed were with reference to the terms of th.' Statute of 1S7(). • • • A^'ain, when the Aet of 1F81 was passed, if eon^rress had intended that penalty should bo imposed for a trespass upon the ri>.'hts conferred by that statute, or if it liad intended that the Act of lS7(i should be revivitied ami operate upon the Aet of ISSl, it was very easy to say so. Its silence in this respect is coprent evidence that it did n(»t uiulerstaiul or intend that the penal statute should be considered a jiart of jiresent and valid law. And that assumption is strenprthened by the fact that it had before it for consideration this ]iassapre from the opinion of the supreme court (quoted above) in which it is broadly stated that the Act of 1870 had fallen with the Act of 1870. Whatever may be true as to the full meaninpr of that decision, or as to the {reneral power of conprress to impose i)enalties for trespasses upon rifrhts havinpr no existence, it had before it the general affirmance by the court that the law of 187G had fallen, and it must be assumed that if it meant that it should stand and be vivified, or that any penalties should be imposed for viola- tions of the law of 1«81. it wonhl have so stated. These con- siderations convince me very stronprly that the Aet of 1876 has. as the supreme court said, fallen with the Aet of 1870, and it is as much a dead letter as the Act of 1S70. and was not vivified or {riven operative force by the Act of 1881." •'' The Act of 1876. then, is no lonprer of force, and there is no federal relief by criminal ])rosecntion to be had; except that under certain conditions, which we will examine in the next section, the owners of trademarks applied to spirituous liquors and wines may be measurably jtrotected by federal prosecution under tlw internal revenu<> laws. . §179. Sec. 3449, Revised Statutes. In the last paragraph of sec. 20 of the A.t of Cnii.jTess approved July IM. 1S(;6. and entitled "An act to redui-e internal taxation Mtid to atnend 4_T'nit«-«l Stntpx v Hrnnn. no .'■.— T'nit.'d Stat<-H v. Korli, 10 F.mI. FH, R.p. 77.-. 777. TN-p. 2.'-.n.2.''.2. 409 CKIMINAI. PROSECUTION — FEDERAL AND STATE. [§179 an act eiitilh'd 'An aot to ])rovidc internal rcvoiuu' to support the government, to pay intcicst on the public dchf, and for other purposes,' approved .lime '.\0, 18G4" (now see. :i449. Revised Statutes of the I'nited States), it is provided us fol- lows : "Whenever any j)erson ships, transports, or removes any spirituous or fermented licjuors or wines, under any other than the proper name or lu-aiid known to the trade as de.si^niat- ing the kind and (piality of the contents of the casks or pack- ages eontainiiifr the same, or causes such act to be done, he shall forfeit said li(piors or wines, and casks or packages, and be subject to ]iay a fine of five hundred dollars." This enactment is constitutional, being within the authority delegated to congress by the first clause of sec. 8 of art. I of the constitution, being to "levy and collect taxes," and "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carry- ing into execution that power." It is no objection to the validity of the act that its enforcement incidentally protects the owners of trademarks. As stated by Mr. Justice Nelson in another connection : "It will not do to say that the exerci.se of an admitted jiower of congress conferred by the constitu- tion is to be withheld, if it appears, or can be .shown, that the effect and operation of the law may incidentally extend beyond the limitation of the power. Upon any such inter- pretation the principal object of the framers of the instrument in conferring the power Avonld be sacrificed to the subordinate consequences resulting from its exercise."'"' It has therefore been held constitutional by Judges Laeombe," Thayer, Sanborn, Caldwell'' and Ilawley." Under this section the term "pack- age" includes every box, barrel, or other receptacle into which distilled spirits have been placed for shipment or removal, either in quantity or in separate small packages, as bottles or jugs."* The phrase "proper name or brand" does not refer fi_Statc of ronnsylvnnia v. Wines. 22 C. (\ A. 228; 76 Fed. Whoolin;,' & Rdmont Brid-rc Co.. Rep. 'M\A: rcvn0. 14— Refrina v. Smith. D. & B. .'")00; a Cox. .32. l.'V— Retina v. Closs. D. & B. 400; 7 Cox. 404; Re^iina v. Smith. 8 Cox. 37; Ri'^'ina v. Oundas. Cox, 380; Rejrina v. Cray, ."^eh. 183; Refjina v. Sutter, 10 Cox, r)77. 411 CKI.MlNAh IMiOSKCI'TION — FEDKRAL AND STATK. [§181 § 181. The penal statutes of the several states, 'i'hc more iinpoi'tant .statutes rclatiiij; t<» f ladi-maik piotccl ion are set out ill the apix'udix. It will he uotici-d, uj)on <'xaiiiiiiiii(x tlnMii, that legislation Ills largely heeii for the protection of labor organizations and of jiartieuhir indiustries; thus, states having no general registration aet, have ])rovisi()ns for the registra- tion and proteetiou of timber marks, or of the packages, such as bottles, or syjilions, used by the manufacturers of carbonated waters, or the milk cans of the dairy industry. In the stat- utes. Avliicii have heon reproduced in the appendix, are to be found admirable examides of every form of trademark legis- lation wliicli tlie necessities of commerce have thus far created. An adequate recristration act in each of the states which now has no general statutory iirovision upon that suhject. and greater nnifoi-mitv of legislation hetween the states, are greatly to he desired. Tn the annotations of these cases, it will be noticed that there have been comparatively few reported cases of criminal prosecution under them. Tlie heavy hni'den of )n*oof imjiosed upon the state in these cases has served as a deterrent to such prosecution. Thus the Illinois court held that proof that two persons, strangers to the defendant, had told him the mark on the goods he was selling was counterfeit, was not necessarily sufficient to prove his guilty knowledge.^'' This difficulty has heon remedied in Massachusetts by the enact- ment of a provision rerpiiring a defendant charged v.-ith the selling of goods hearing a spurious mark to show that he bought them innocently. Tt is undoubtedly proper legislation to impose this require- ment upon the defendant. Tn England, proof of fraudulent intent is not required in a pro.secution under IMerchandise Marks Act of 1887.'' 16— Vofrt V. Pcoplf. .')0 TU. App. Q. B. D. 162. For further rulinjTR 684. pec statutes of the several states, 17 — Wood V. Burgess, L. R. 24 in the appendix. (MI \p'ri:i.* XII. ACTIONS AT LAW. §182. The form of action. "Tho only redress fur a trade- mark infriiimMiH'iit was al lirsl liy an art ion in a roiiimoM law court for (lamajrcs for deceit.' An action at law for damages i.s prescribed hy the Act of I'M)'), as a proper lej;al ri'inedy for infriufienu'nt.s of trademarks.- It is against the policy of the law that the owner of a valid trademark shoidd \usv hy rejison of its infrinj^ement. 'i'o prevent such a result, tiie aetion at law is well ada{)ted, because it measures the i)liiintifT's recovery by the plaintilT's loss, liut it is also a^'ain.st the policy of the law that an infrinjrer should gain by reason of his infringement. By sec. 7 of the Act of IS.Sl the action of trespass on the ca.se was specified as the aivpi-ojiriate action at law for trademark in- fringement. The history of this form of action has been succinctly deseribeil by Engli.sh jurists. Lord Blackburn said: "The original founda- tion of the whole law is this: that when one knowing that goods are nr)t made by a particular trader sells them as and for the goods of that trader, he does tliat which injures that trader. At first it was put upon the ground that he did .so when he sold inferior goods as and for tlie trader's ; but it is established (alike at law-' and in e(|uity' > tliat il is an actionable injury to pass off poods known not to be the jtlaintifT's as and for the plaintiff's, even though not inferior. " •'■ The develoi)Mient of the action on tlii' case, and the nunuier in whi<*h it became adapted to the exigencies of trademark i.ssues. are thus admirably stated by Mellisb. L. ,].: "In my oi)inion all actions of this nature must be founded upon false representa- tions. Oritriiudly, I apprehend, the right to bring an action in l_r,iiynojf, L. 2— Act of P'.J.ruary 20. 100.'".. 8 10. H. 8 A. C. 15-29. 3— Blofli-ld V. I'ayn»', 4 H. 4 Ad. 410. 412 413 ACTIONS AT LAW. (§183 respect oi tlie improper iisc ol" a liailciiiark arose; out ol" tlie common law riglit to briuj; uii uetioii for a false roprcseiitation, •whieli, ol' eoiirsi', iimsl In- a falsi; representation made fraudu- lently, it dilVeicd frdiii an oi'dinarv action for false represen- tation in this rcs|>('c1 : tiiat an action I'or lalse representation is generally ltrouj,'lit liy the person to whom the false representation is made; hut in the case of the improper use of a trademark, theconunon hnv courts noticed that the false representation uhich is made by putting another man's trademark, or the tradename of another jiianufactMrcr, on the goods which the wrong-doer sells, is calculated to do an injury, not only to the person to whom the false or fraudulent representation is made, but to the manu- facturer whose trademark is imitated ; and, therefore, the cominon law courts held that such a manufaeturer had a right of action for the improper use of his trademark. Thm the coniinon law courts extended that doctrine one step further; first, if I recollect rightly, in the case of Sijhcs r. Sijl-c.:.'^ There it was held that althoui:li the representation "was perfectly true as between the original vendor and the original purcha.ser, in this sense, that the original i)Ui-chaser knew perfectly well who was the real manufacturer of the goods and therefore was not deceived into believing that he bad bought goods manufactured by ajiotber person, yet if the trademark Avas put on the goods for the pur- pose of enal)ling that j)iirchaser, fwhen be came to resell the goods, to deceive any one of the public into thinking that he Avas purcba.^ing the goods of the manufacturer to whom the trade- mark properly belonged, then that was equally a deception, a selling of goods with a false representation, which would give the oriirinal user of the trademark a right of action. That "was the connnoii law I'iglit."" The trademark owner whose rights are infringed has his election between ])roceeding at law or in equity.^ § 183. The declaration. — The ])roper parts of a declaration in an action at law are. in their order, as follows: 1. The title of the court. 2. The title of the term. 3. The luime. G— .3 B. ."t fr. .541. R— ITapan & Dodd Co. v. Rigbera, 7— Singer Mfjr. Co. v. Wilson, L. 1 Ca. App. 100; 57 S. E. Rep. 2 Ch. D. 434-453. 970. §183] HOI'KINS ON TUADKMAKKS. 414 4. Tlio coinnioiKUMiu'iit. 5. The stutrineiit <>f the iij:ht of action. G. Tlie I'oiu'lusioii. Till' t-orriM't title of the I'liited States; District Court cstali- iislictl ill the Noitlicni District of California is "Thv District Court of the Cniteii States for the Northern District of Cali- fornia," anil the titles of the various other ilistn-t courts are the same, except as to the name of the district," to which should he added the name of the division of the district, where the judicial district.s are suhdivided. The tenii in which the declaration slmuld lie entitled is the term to which the defenilant is summoned.'" It is unnecessary to entitle a declaration in the name of the «ase in which it is filed: the style of the case may ho indorsed upon the hack of the declaration as a Jiiatter of convenience." The venue should he laid in the district where the declaration is filed, regardless of the district or di.stri1 ; Railroad Co. v. Ilarrin, 12 327; 19 L. Kd. 113.-). Wall. O.'.; 20 L. Kd. 3.-.4 ; Kx parte 12— Peytoii V. De-niond. O'A C. C. ScliollenlMTp-r. 0(1 U. S. 300; 24 L A. AM; 120 Fed. Itej. » Kd, 8.-)3 ; PeiiiiHylvania Co. v. Rail- 13— HoHton Kl. Ky. Co. v. firare road Co.. 118 T'. S. 200; .30 L. Ed. A- riyde Co., .-)0 C. C. A. 239; 1J2 83; Co«.dlet v. Hailroad, 122 U. S. Fed. Hej.. 270. .301 ; -M) I. Kd. 12.10. 415 ACTIONS AT I^W. [§183 tioii. Divfi-sc (iti/ciisliij), il" it exists, must be shown. II" the tradonuifk iii\(tl\('(| is tvfj^istered undci- tho Act of Feb. liO, 1I>05, that fact must l)c plciulcd, because, (ii-st, it establislirs a prima facie r'\\i\\i to the use of the mark, and seconci, confers juris- diction upon the t"e(h'r-al court regardless ot" the aniount in eon- trovei"sy."' It" the action is iM'tweeu citizens ot" the same state, even thouf^h invoh in^r a registered trademark, tlie deehu-ation nnist aver that the phiintifr uses the trademar-k and the det'endant the infring- ing nuirk upon goods intended for commerce with foreign na- tions oi- witli Indian tribes or in interstate eonunerce.'^ If the action is based upon a connnon law trademark, the de(rlaration must set forth the amount in controversy, whicli is not the amount sought to be recovered, but the value of the tradenuirk, and that value must be not less than three thousand dollars.*^ Fraud is essential to recovery at law. Lord Wcstbury said, "Proof of fraud on the part of the defendant is of the essence of the action." '" Furthermore, at law it is necessary to show, and plead, that an injury has actually been done by the defend- ant's act of infringement.-" The averment of infringement should set forth, then, in what the infringement consi.sted, and that it was done willfully and with fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant. The state- ment of the right of action should describe the trademark in exact and appr(){)riate terms, and where possible the real and simu- lated nuirks should be reproduced in fac-simile. 16— Act of Mart-li :?. ISSl, §7; 1!)— Kdi-lstcn v. Edelsten, 1 DeO. Act of 190.^), §§ 16, 17. SyniDiuls v. J. & S. 185; to tlu' samo effoct, Har- Greene, 28 Fed. Rep. 834; Glotin v. ^Tavos v. Smith. Sch. 3.38; Law- Oswald, 6."> Fed. Ri'p. 1")!; Hcnnes- son v. Bank of London, 18 C. sy V. Iltrrmann, 80 Fi-d. Rop. 669; B. 84; 2;) L. J. C. P. 188; In re Kcasl)oy & Mattison Co., 160 2 Jur. X. S. 716; 27 L. T. 134; U. R. 221-227; 40 L. Ed. 402. 4 W. R. 481; Seb. 140; Rodgers v. 17— Luyties v. Ilollonder (1), 22 Xowill. 6 Hare, 325; 5 C. B. 100; Blatchf. 413; ScluimacluT v. 17 L. J. C. P. .-)2; 11 Jur. 1030; Rchwenkc (1), 26 Fed. Rep. 818; 10 L. T. 88; Sd). 82; Crawshay v. Ryder v. Holt, 128 U. S. 525; Thompson, 4 Man. >S: O. 3.-)7 : 5 32 L. Ed. 520; Gravely v. Gravely, Roott, X. R. .-)62; 11 L. .T. C. P. 42 Fed. Rep. 265; Prince's Metallic 301; Reh. 72. Paint Co. v. Prince Mfjr. Co., 53 20— Rin^r.-r Mfj,'. Co. v. Loog (3», Fed. Rep. 493. L. R. 8 App. Cas. 15-30. 18 — Rymonds v. Greene, 28 Fed. Rep. 834. § 183] HOPKINS ON TRAI>KM.VRK«:. 416 The conclusion of the tU'claratioii slioiild I'lay for tlif actual tlaiuji^je sustaiiit-i hy tlu' plain! i;V ami for imnitivL* dania^'os if the facts justify. Some atljudications in the past have held that there can he no recovers of punitive damages,-' hut such a conclusion is at variance with the fundamental principles of the law of torts. The more wholesome and l)etter reasoned doctrine is to the contrary. -"- In sec. 1() the Act of VM)') provides in relation to actions at law for damages for the infringcnncnt of a registered mark, that •whenever in any such action a verdict is rendered for the plain- tilT. the court may enter judgment therein for any sum almve the amo\int found hy the verdict as the actual danuiges, not exceeding three times the amount of such verdict, toircther with the costs." In a declaration hased upon the infringennent of a mark regis- tered under the act, the conclusion should pray for the actual damages stated to have heen sustained liy the -[daintif!", together with such additional amount, not exceeding in all three times the amount of such actual damages, as the court may Sicc fit to adjudge, together with the costs. The conclusion oids with the foniial allcL^ation of bringing suit. It is neces.sary at common law in drafting the declaration to directly allege that tiie injury has heen committed hy continua- tion from one given time to another or that it Avas committed on divers days and times. Thus, one pleader alleged in his declaration as follows: " Since the 1st day of NovemWr. 1888, knowingly, willfully, and fraudulently otTered for sale, and is now .selling, glue in packaires." T'pon the trial, in the Federal Circuit Court for the District of .Ma.ssachusetts. the comi)lainant was pennittcd to introiluce proof of sales l»y the defendant of infringin«r goods hetweeji Novemher 1. ISSS, and Xovendier 30. 188!». amounting to 4r)G.:n8.t>4. The circuit court of appeals of the fourth circuit set aside a judgment of ^8.000, entered upon the verdict of a jury, saying, hy Putnam. J., "There is no rontinii- nndo with referenc*' to the matter of .selling; so that, mx-ording to the common law, the plaintilT could properly prove only one 21— Tnyliir v. CnriMnt.r (2), 2 22— Wnrn.r v. Hoihr. Fed. Caw* Woml. & M. 1; Cox, a2 ; '.• L. T. \... 171H!».\: Day v. Woodworth, .'■>U; Scb. 83. l-t H<'\v. 'MV.\: \\ I.. i:«». 1«1 ; Hrowiii'. TriKKmRrka {2d Kd), §S nut, 520. 417 ACTIONS AT LAW. [§ 184 actual .sale as an imlfpciKltiit basis of (lamaK<-*«- 'I'I'c ars. In such a case no injunction can issue unless the licensee joins in the action.-^ It may be advisable to set up laches or actpiiescence, or that there are facts to justify a plea that whatever ri^'hts the complainant once had lie has lost liy abandoiunent : which matters have been discussed in a precedin": chapter. In an exceptional case the complainant's recovery may be precluded by an estoppel.-^ which should, of course, be pleaded. The complainant's nuirk may have become invalid because its assignment to liim from its former owner has not been sufficiently advertised, and the mark as used tends to mislead the public into a belief that the former owner is still the producer of the goods.2'^ The complainant's label may con- tain misrepresentations of fact, 2'' or his allcfred trademark may be a word that, once distinctive, has become puhlici juris.-"^ It is a good defense to the action at law to show eitlier of these mat- ters. The fact that the comjilainant's trademark is registered does not deprive the public of the right to use a similar mark which Avas common to the trade before the registration. Thus, where "La Normandi." was registered as a mark for cigars, but "La Xormanda" Avas already in common use for a like purpose, 23 — Lo Pa^i^ Co. v. Russia CCmcnt Alaska Imp. Co., GO Fed. Rep. 103; Co., 2 C. C.'^A. 55.5; 51 Fod. Rep. Sicfirrt v. At)hott (1), <>1 Md. 286. 041-040; 17 L. R. A. .354. 27— Pi so Co. v. Voifrht. 4 Ohio 24— Wallac'li v. \Vi<,'morc. S7 Fed. X. P. .347; Krauss v. .Jos. R. Poo- Rep. 460. ''Jes' Sons Co., 58 Fed. Rep. .585; 2.T Laverfjne v. Roopcr. liid. L. Moxic Xorve Food Co. v. Modox R. 8 Mad. IW. Co., 1.-.2 Fed. Rop. 40.3. 26— Alaska Packers' Assn. v. 28— Sie-rert v. Al.hott (4>, 25 X. Y. Supp. 590; 72 Hun, 243. §184J IIOI'KINS ON TK \1>KM \1{K> 418 injunction to restrain tlu' use of tin- latter was donifcl.'"' In fact the registration of a tratleniark does not prevent its being attacked as n word })ul)l{ci juris, or as hoin^j itsfU* a coloraMe imitation of anotluT tradi'iiiark.'"' Tlif lui^'lisli decisions upon tliis j)oint are in harmony witli tliosc of tin- courts of tlie I'nited States.-" The lU'fendaiit nuiy plead a license from the owner of the mark. This, of course, presumes that tlie license was lawful, anil tliat the lic«'nsee lias not so usecl the mark as to i)erpetrate a frauil upon the public. •''- Where two or more persorp v. Ponce. 2.5 Fed. Rip. 4:}0; Price &. Steuart, 907; 128 U. S. 680; 32 L. Ed. 505). 30 — M(M)rman v. Ilofre, Fed. Case No. 9783; 2 Sawyer. 78; Decker v. Decker. r>2 Flow. Pr. 218; nien Cove Mf^'. Co. V. Liid.-lin;:. 22 F.d. Uep. 823; Cox. Miimial. iWrt; 23 BlateJif. 40; Sclmmaelier v. Sclnvenke (2), 30 OfT. Car.. Afu . .31_^„ rr Palm.r, L. K. 21 Ch. D. 47; Bodega Co., (Ltd.) v. Owens, 23 L. R. Ir. 371; Wolfe v. T.nnj:. 13 Vict. L. R. 7.'i2; Wolfe v. Alw.p (2 I. 12 Vict. L. R. (K.).421; 1.4'wiH V. Klnpproth. 11 Vict. L. R. (E.l. 214 .32 — Tlw (i<\h to wliirh a licen •o<» applicii the mark muHt \»- e(|iiHl in quality to the poods to which tlie licensor applied them. Law- rence Mfp. Co. V. TenncsMH? Mfg. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 770; 138 U. S. r)37; 34 L. F.d. 997; Oldham v. James, 13 Ir. Ch. 393; 14 Jhiti. 81; BloHB V. Bloomer, 23 Barl). 004; Cox, 290; Samuel v. Berper, 24 Barh. 163; Cox. 178; Rodppr.s v. Philp. 1 Oir. flaz. 29; hi rv ToUr. 2 niT. Caz. 41.-). 3.3— Marshall v. Pinkham, 52 Win. 572; Price & Steuart. 497. 33rt — As to actions at law in the federal courts the Act March 3, 191.'.. 38 Stat. Ti. 9.'>0, provides "(liat in all actionn at law eq\iitahle defenses mav he interj.osed." 419 ACTIONH AT I/A\V. [§ 185 §185. Damages. The courts of the I'nitcd Stales have nig- iially failed to aj,'n'c upon any fixed rule as to the measure of damages in actioihs at Jaw- for the infriiigemeut of trademarks. To the student of the decisions the only apparent eaus<' for this fact lies in two practical reasons. The (irst, that the remedy offeretl by ecpiity is inore complete. The second is that much of the trademark piracy, of this countrj' at least, is conducte — Sutherland, Damages, (2d had been directed that they might ed.), vol. Ill, §1202; citing Ran- find punitive damages. The verdict som v. Mayor, 1 Fisher, 252; was not disturbed. Parker v. Hulme, 1 Fisher, 44; Ad- 35 — Addington v. CuUinane, 28 dington v. Cullinane, 28 Mo. App. Mo. App. 238-241; followed in Lam- 23S. § 185] HOPKINS ON TKADKMARKS. 420 To till' author's mind the hi-ttfr nilf is aiiiioiiiu'ed in tho ease of Warner v. h'ochr. in wliich tlu* instructions of .luilno lilodgett t(» a jury said in part: "In cases of this character, whore you are sjitislied from th»' proof and from tlie admissions in the case that the frauil — the intention to defraud — is at the bottom of the matter, • • • tlie jury arc not confined to the exact monetary damajjes, hut nuiy give what are known as vindictive or exemphiry danuiges, for the purpose of deterring others from embarking in the same scheme of fraud and deception."-''" Jt is not It) he doubted tliat this doctrine is more reasonabh^ and just, and lietter adapted to protect society from the ravages of trademark infringers, than the rule stated in Tdi/hr v. Car- />f /I /r /••■''* and A(hlin;]ton v. Cull inn )ic.^'^ It is diflicult to see ho-w the result stated in those cases lias been attaineil.'" They are uholly without precedent and opposed to tiie rule of damages which ol)taIn((l at common law. AVhat that rule was, and is. so far as our federal courts are coneemeil. is nowhere more clearly stated than by .Mr. Justice Grier in an opinion in which he speaks for the federal supreme court. Tie says: "It is a well-established principle of the common law that in actions of trespass and all actions on the case for torts a jury may inflict Avhat are called exemplary, punitive or vindictive damages upon a defendant, having in view the enormity of his ofTen.se rather than tlie measure of compensation to the plaintiff. We are aware that the propriety of this doctrine ha.s been ques- tioned by some writers; but if repeated judicial decisions for more than a century are to l>e received as the best exposition of what the law is. the question will not admit of argument. By the common as well as hy statute law men are often punished for aggravated misconduct or lawless acts by means of a civil action, and the damages, inflicted by way of penalty or punish- ment, given to the |)arty injured. In many civil actions, s\uA\ as libel, slander, seduction, etc., the wrong done to the plaintiff is incapable of being nicasurcd by a money standanl ; ami the :t7_\VHrn.T V I{...lir. Knl la^<' !)..l|.li Dni^ Co.. 2:iS M... 40ft. 421; No. 171Hn.\ 111 S. \V. H.-p. inft.->. lOOft; rfvors- .1H — Huprii \u)x I.aniiHTt v. .Iiidp" A Dolpli DniR :\U—Hupr,i Co.. lift Mo. App. 01)3; 100 S. W. 40— Thi- lim;riiH;.'r of tliix t<-.vt lUj). O.'ift. H|i|»rov»- might nuike such inferences as to the loss and injury sustained by plaintilf as they might think warranted l)y the whole evidence in the case."""' Much to the same eifeet is the hoUling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. "•' In California the rule of assessing danuiges would seem to give the plaintiir tin- profits nuide by the defendant in his sales of goods bearing the infringing iiiark.^'* Hut it is very doubtful if that course is proper in an action at Jaw. Damage.s wiTe the appropriate, and indeed the only, remedy at law. while the account of profits was peculiar to courts of equity. ■••' Under the English practice a custom has growni uj) by which a complaijiant in e(piity may pray for an account of profits and an intpiiry as to damages (and it has been held in Wisconsin that this is the proper course in pleading"^ '^" but before any order for discovi'r>' can be made he must elect between the accounting of j)rofits and tlie in<|uin- of damages. He can not have both.** As said by Cotton, L. .!., in tlie English Court of Appeal, in re- fusing discovery asked by a complainant before he had elected ])etween profits and damages: "At the time when the order waa made, the plaintiff had not elected to waive his account of profits. Would it then be right to allow the plaintiff to get a jury to determine what damages he was entitled to before he liad made his election betwen damages and profits? Should the jury award f«-«'n V. Uninton. 4 Mcl.cun. r,](\. -17— Mnrsli v. HilIin;,'S. 7 Cunhing, r>20; F.-d. Caw N(.. 2!M0; Blofi.ld v. :\22, 3:{2. l'nyn<-. 4 Hnrn. i Ad. 410. 411; 48— (^Jraliam v I'liitr, 4(i Cal. Marnh v. nillinKB, 7 CuBhing. 322, -.0.3, nOS. 'A'A\; Conrad v. Hri-winj; Co., 8 Mo. 4ft — Sclmstian. Trndi-mnrkH (4th App. 277. 2Hr.; Kl Mod.Uo Ci^'ar Va\.) , p. 2.12. Co. V. fJato, 2r. Fia. 880, i)\r,; ft So. r>0— Lcid.rsdnrf v Flint (2). .'iO R«-p. 2.1. WiH. 401. AO—Cnunul V. BnwinK Co., 8 .'il— Nt-ilnon v. H. ttH. L. U. Ci II. Mo. App. 277. 28.'i. L. R. I. 423 ACTIONS AT LAW. [§ 185 hiiu a large sum tor daiiiagcs, lie would probably accept it ; but if they gave liiiii a siuall sum only, then lie might say, 'No, 1 would rather have an aecouiit of profits, as 1 see by tlie del'end- aut's books that he luLs made a mueh lai-g(;r sum.' " •'- It would scrni I hat the damages at law must he l)a.se(>— Chapleau v. Laporte, 16 5.5— Shaw V. Pilling. 175 Pa. St. Hap. Jud. Que. C. S. 189, 78, 84. It la competent to show ciiAi*ri:K* xiii. THE ACTION IN EQUITY. § 18G. The basis of equitable jurisdiction. — Lord ^Yestbu^y saiil : '"Imposition on llu' i)ul)lic occjisioiu'il hy one man sellint; Ills jrootLs as tlu' poods of anothor oan not be tho ground of private action or suit. In tlu' ianpuago of Lord Thurlow in Web'stcr V. W'chstcr,^ ''\'\iv fraud upon the public is no ground for the plaintifT coming into court.' It is, indeed, true. that, unless the mark used by the defendant be applied by him to tlie .same kiml of goods as tbe goods of the jdaintitT, and be in itself such that it may be aiul is mistaken in the market for the trade- mark of the plaintitT, the court can not interfere, because there is no invasion of the {)laintilT's right; and thus the mistake of the buyers in tbe market, under which they, in fact, take the defendant's goods as the goods of the plaintiff, that is to say, imposition on the public, becomes the test of the property in the tradenuirk having been invadi-d, antl not the ground on which the court rests it.s jurisdiction." ^ In (juotingthe extract given above. Vice Chancellor Van Vleet has said : "Tiie rule as thus stated I understand to be tlie estab- lished doctrine now in force on this subject both in this country and in England." •' In the early Hnirlish practice the chancellor had power to refuse or p(>stp()ne the ap|)licatioii of e(iuitabb' remedies in trade- mark cases until the title to the trademark had been determined in a court of law. This practice continued until November 1, 1862, when the "Chancery Regidation Act, iMIi'J."^ went into 1 — 3 SwnriHt. 400. <•<> Co. v. Snm Ucid Toluioco Co., 2 — Lontlur Cloth Co. v. Amcri- 1(»4 Mo. .">:{, 00; McLt'an v. Fh-minj;, r«n r.4ntlMr Clotli Co, 4 D.fl. .1. flfl V. S. 24.'>. 2.^)1; 24 L. F:d. JW8; & S. 1.37, 141. Sliav.r v. Sliav.-r. .')4 Iowa. 20S. 3— .Schnc'iihr v. WillianriH. 44 N. 2(t!t: Harrows v. Knij:lit. R. I. J. Eq. 391. .19.3. To the Kamo of- 4:14. 4.'IS; Handy v. Commandir. 49 fpci iMT WWnor V. Hrayt«)n, l.'i2 l.n. Ann 1119. Mann. 101. 10.3; Av.ry v. M.iklf. HI 4—-2r> and 20 Nictoria. c. 42. p. Ky. 73, 91; L>KK«tt 4 My«rH iol.ac- 154. 424 425 ACTION IN EliUITY. [§186 (•n't't't. The liist section of thai in-t jirovides that "In all i-Jist'S ill uliicli any i-clid' <>v icmmmIv uitliin the jiiristliftion of the said courts of clianccry rcspt'ctivfly is or shall Ik* sought in any ••uiise or matter instituted or pending' in either of said (M)urts, and whether the title to surh relief or remedy l»(! or he not incident to or dependent upon a lej^'al ri^^dit, every cpiestion of law or fact, eotrui/.ahle in a court of eonunon law, on the detei-nnnation of whieh the title to such relief or remedy dejx'nds, shall he deter- mined hy or hefori' the same eourt." It is important to hear this enaetment in mind in examining the earlier iMi^dish trademark cases, as it explains the many failures of iMp.iity to act, or the deferring; of relief hy injunction until the determination of the ri^dit to the use of tlie trademark hy trial at law. Ivjuity firs-t extended its heneficent protection to the owners of trademarks because of the inadequacy of the remedy at law. This inadequacy arose from the absence of the power in courts of law to act in personam — the injunctive power, liut there were other reasons why co^iizance of trademark causes belonged pecu- liarly to equity. Prominent among these was the power of the chancellor in granting discovery — the right to discovery being, as Mr. Bispham says, one of the peculiar advantages of a com- plainant in equity, enjoyed by him in every case in which he was entitled to come into chancery, either for the purpose of asserting an equitable title, or setting up an equitable right or applying an equitable remedy;^ though the right was always conditioned by the necessary restriction that the person brought in on discovery need not disclose matters tending to incriminate him or expose him to penalty or forfeiture. And there was yet another rea.son why this litigation found its way to the ehan- eellor. One of the most ancient forms of action at the common law uas the action of account. "But," in the words of Mr. Justice Story, "the modes of proceeding in that action, although aided from time to time by statutable provisions, were found so very dilatory, inconvenient and unsatisfactory, that as soon as courts of equity began to assume jurisdiction in inatter.s of account, as they did at a very early period, the remedy at law l>egan to decline; and although some efforts have been made in 5— Bispham, Equity (4tli od.), p. 000, §557. § 187] HOPKINS ON TRAOEM AKKS. 42G nimlorn tiinos to rosuscitati' it. it lias in Kiinlaiitl lallcii into alniast total disuso."" So. when it liccann' apparent that ail account of protit.N must he sought ibs. at lejist. the hji-sis of a proper rnoiu'V jinl^rnicnt against an infringer, the parties litigant were foreod to enter the domain of eipiit y. Hut, above all, there was that jiower in e(|uity descrilu'd by Hlackstone as the i)0'wer "to detect latent frauds ami conet'alments, which the pnx'css of the courts of la%v is not adapted to reach."" While not exclusive of the courts of law. the courts of eendcnt and itiherent jurisdiction to relieve against every species of frautl.'* The remedy sought governs largely the question of juri.sdic- tion in etpiity. If a mere accounting is sought for. it is insuffi- cient to vest such jurisdiction, for the account must be incidental to some other e(piitable relief.'' durisdiction in e(iuity will not attach for discovery simply, except in aid of a suit at law; the party applyin; '2(] L. Kd. (1.1th Kd.i. M42. !•:■>; Vim Uanlt v. .*1; nfllrmi-d in Van 02. Itaalt V. Sclin.ck. !!.". C ('. A. Cu'2: R— Krrr, Frniid ami Mi**takr I7n F.«l. l!.p. U>J1. (Bump'B Ed), p. 4.3. Ki- Lord v. Wliitduad A Atlicr- 0— Root V. h. S. A M. S. Kail- ton Machine Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 801. 427 ACTION IN Ki^lITV [§187 h'oiirlli, i!' tlinc arc persons (itlnT tliaii tliosr iiaiiicil jts |Ki'na, Hpecifird in former Rule 2'i; the clerk is now n-quired by Rule 12 to issue the Hubp^;MAKK^ 430 assessed in oijuity.-' Where the hill charges tlu' iiifriM<;i'iiu'iit of a ri'gistt'ri'tl mark tlu* prayer shoulil ask for an increase of the actual ilamagi's loun*!, as provided in sec. 1!» of the Act of li)05. The j)rayer for general relief should he in the fonn usual ia eipiity pleading. ■-'- I'nle.ss a preliminary injunction is prayed lor the hill need not be verified.--' 21 — Ht-nnossy v. W ilmcniinj,' Loewe Co., 103 Fed. Rep. 90. 22 — A bill to enjoin unfair com- petition must expressly eliar^e that the defendant lias attempted or in- tended to praetiee fraud upon tlu- public. Lamont v. Leedy, 8S Fed. Rep. 72, 74. But this rule is hardly broad enoujjh. The better doctrine would seem to b«' that the bill need only charge ihat the defendant's merchandise is calculated to de- ceive the public. Judye Lacombe, referrin;: to the practice of the federal coiirts in cases of unfair trade, has said: "Nor do these courts riH]uire specific proof of purchases by individuals actually dt'ceived. when the labels them- selves show an attempt at decep- tion which apjiears to l»e well cal- culated to dceeivf." C'ollinsplatt v. Finlayson, 88 Fed. IJep. <>!•:$. And the same learned court indicates the same rule in Hurmtt v. Hahii, 88 Fed. Rep. (i04. A bill to enjoin thr iiutinifdctur- er or vendor of spuriotm Inbrla must contain an express charp- that the defendant is actually en- (.'ap'd in assistin;,' third jktsoiis to j)alm ofT their ;.'oods upon the jiuldic as tlu' j^'oods of the com- plainant, or a substantially <-(|uiva- b-nt nvermrnt. De Kuyper v. Wit- tcman, 23 Fed. Rep. 871; Hennt-Hsy V H.rrmann, 80 F.d. H.-p. r.r.O. A bill to enjoin tin- infringe- ment of a technical trademark must set up facts showing an ex- clusive right to the use of the mark in tiie plaintiff. He "must recover upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the weak- ness of the defendant's." Brown, .r., in O'Hourke v. Central Citv Soap Co., 2() Fed. Rep. ")76-r>79. Improper joinder of causes of action. — A bill is multifarious that joins with a charge of unfair com- l>etition by the use of a trade- name a claim for damages under the Sherman anti-trust act of July 2. 18iK). Block v. Standard Dis- tilling A Distributing Co., 95 Fed. Rep. !)78. A bill is multifarious that joins with a charge of unfair competi- tion (by passing olT the deft-nd- ant's goods in unmarked packages as and for plaintiffs goods) n. charge of patent infringement. Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Cohn, 00 I'.d. Rep. 604. Avertnent of oirnrr.sliip. — A bill for trademark infringenn'nt failing to aver ownership of the trademark is fatally defective. Pennell v, I.othrop, l!il Mass. 3:)7 ; 77 X. E. I!ep. S42. 23 — Hughes v. Northern Pacific Ky. Co. 18 Fed. Rej). 100. 110; Black v. Allen, 42 Fed. Rep. 018. 023. 431 ACTION IN EQUITY. [§187 Those sugpfcstioiis for the most pait relate to Mils in the i't'j that the great hulk of the traih'iiiark litigation is before theui. As to the state courts, rereicin-e iinist necessai'ily ]u'. had to the local foi'ius of action (or absence of sueli foriri.s) created by b'gislati\'e enact lueiit. As to the joiiuh'r of causes of action the new rules provide as follows: 26. JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION. Tlie plaintitT may join in one bill as many cases of action, cognizable in ecjuity, as he nuiy have against the defendant. But when there are more than on plaintiff, the causes of action joined must l)e joint, and if there be more than one defendant the liability must be one asserted against ab of the material defendants, or sufficient grounds must appear for uniting the causes of action in order to [)romote the con- venient administration of justice. If it appear that any such causes of action can not be conveniently disposed of to- gether, the court may order separate trials.^^ 24 — A new rule, l)asr(l upon tlu' Enplisli ruK-: "Subject to the followin;,' rulos of tliis order, the plaintiff may unite in the same action several causes of action, l)ut if it appear to the court or a juduc that any such causes of action can not be conveniently tried or disposed of tofjether, the court or judfre may order separate trials of any of such i-auses of action to be had, or may maki" such other order as may be necessary or expedient for the separ- ate disposal tliereof." (Order XVITI., Rule 1.) An illustration of the operation of this rule is found in a case in which the plaintiff alleped the in- fringement of twenty-three patents. Ap{>lication was made to limit the action (under Order XVITI, Rules S and !), and Order XIX, Rule 27), upon which application the court of appeal held that plaintiff was not entitled to unite the twenty- three pati'uts in one suit, but should l)e directed to select a group of his patents, not exceeding three, as being "such of the causes of action as may be conveniently disposed of together" (tliis being tlu' lan- guage of Order XVIII. Rule 8). Saeeliarin Corp. v. Wild (1903), 1 Ch. 410. That this rule does not compel the joinder of dissimilar actions, or of causes which would require vari- ous kinds of relief or various ac- countings, see Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. V. National Elec. Signal- ing Co., 206 Fed. Rep. 2n.">. That it does not authorize the joinder of a suit in equity and an action at §188] HOPKINS ON TRADEMARKS. 432 A bill for unfair competition will not be liekl bad on motion to tlismiss upon the jiround that the words and phrases charfjed to be used by the defendant iuiraetiti()ner. See Order XIX, Rules 2 and 3. At cummt)n law a defendant vho had a claim against the plaintiff could not assert it by way of set- off or counter-claim, save that, when sued for the purchase price of mer- chandise, he could set up breach of warranty, express or impHed. Street V. Blay (1831), 2 Barn. & Ad. 4r)(i. Til.- statute of 2 Ceo. 11, e. ±2, jiermitted the defendant to plead a set-ofT in certain cases; l)ut in courts of law only legal liabilities could be off-set, while in courts of e<|uity, equital>le claims for lirpiidated amounts, created be- tween the same |>artie8 and in tlie same right could ))(? so off set. (iavondish v. flreaves, 24 Heav. 103. T'nder tlie modern practice in Eng- land the defendant may accpiire and fM*t off a del>t owing by the plaintiff to a stra iger to the litigation, Bennett v. White, W. N. (1910), 1(57. A set-off is still a defense to the plaintiff's claim; while a counter- claim is a cross-action, which need not have any connection, however remote, witii the plaintiff's cause of action. It need not be "an action of tlie same nature as the original action." Beddall v. Maitland, 17 C. D. 181. The net result of the re- vised procedure in England is that a legal counter-claim may be in- terposed in chancery, and an equit- able claim in an action at law. Fleming v. Lee (l!)ni), 2 Ch. 594. As to the purpose and intent of the rule in simplifying the answer, see Coulston v. Francke Steel Range Co., 221 Fed. Rep. GG9; Pittsburgh Water Heater Co. v. Beler Water Healer Co.. 222 Fed. Rep. fl.'iO. Aa to comparison with the working of file Ijiglisli rules, see Terry Steam 'i'urbine Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co., 204 Fe The plaintilV 20 — This is a now nilo. abolish- injr the old practice as to excep- tions for scandal and impertinence. See former Rules 2(1 and 27. Thr English liulr. — "The court or a judf,'e may at any stajje of the proceedinf this rule, sec Williams v. Pope. 21."> Fed. Kep. 1000. .30 — lames v. .lames. L. H. 1.3 Eq. Cas. 421; Cocks v. Chaii.llcr, L. "R. II Kq. Cas. 44«. .31 — Clark v. Freeman, 11 Reav. 112. This decision is criticised in Maxwell v. Hogg. T.. R. 2 Ch. App. 307 ; but it ia manifestly correct 437 ACTION IN EQUITY. [§192 may not l)e entitled to recover l)e('aii.se ol" liis not havin},' an exclusive right to the mark; or because he has, witliout authority, used the words "patent" or "patented" in connection Avith or as a part of wiuit he claims a.s his ti"a duty of the court in every case in in principle, considered as a trade- his profession t)y liavinjr liis name name case. Lord Justice Cairns associated witli a quacl< medicine?" says (L. R. 2 Ch. App. 310) : "It In re Riviere's Trademark, L. R. 20 has always appeared to me that Ch. D. 53. Clark V. Freeman mijjht have been 32 — Hennessy v. Kennett, Seh. decided in favor of the plaintiff 5,50 ; Gorham ^If*?. Co. v. Emery- on the ground that he had a prop- Bird-Thayer Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 774; erty in his own name," i. e., a Hostetter Co. v. Brunn, 107 Fed. rifiht of privacy, which involves a Rep. 707. discussion which it would l)e aside 33 — Societe Anonyme Benedictine from our purpose to enter upon v. Hy!AKKS. 438 which a small dealer wiio Ills inii()i"eMtl\ hapix'iied \o purcliasc a small tiuaiility of the spurious j^ckxIs. to iix him with the <;osts of an ai-tioii." "'• A defendaiit who was printing' lahels for a third party ditl i\ot know that tlie laliels l>ore eouiiterfeits of l>laiiitill"s trademarks. On heiii. \V. Cole v. Fed. Rep. 271. ( (.h's Oil Co.. 147 Fed. Rep. 9.30; 38 — I'pmann v. ForcHtcr, L. R. nwinellWripht Co. v. (\)-operativc Supply Co., 148 Fed. Rep. 242. 439 ACTION IN lOiUlTY. [§ 192 injurj' to it arc as inuoli to ho regarded hy a court of equity a;s ail injury to a plaint ill's husincss. It tlieret'ore follows tliat tlic right of an owner of a tradiMiiark is not a right to its cxchisivc use cvcrywlu'rc and undci- all cinvunistanccs. " ■"' Thus, an iron inaniirartun'r using a lion's licad as his trademark can not enjoin a linen luaiuiLacturer from using a lion's head a.s his mark." It was held that "Fruit Salt" as a trademark for an effervescing drink, a registered mark, might he interfered with by the words ''Fruit Salt" desigiuiting a baking po-wder. In this ease it Avas shown that the "Fruit Salt" used in producing the effervescing drink Jiad been used as a baking powder, in exceptional cases; but the court renuirked that if it were proposed to so employ the words "Fruit Salt" that "no reasonable person could suppose that they had reference to the appellant's prepa- ration, such a use would be perfectly unobje(;tionable. For example, I can not conceive any one imagining that a "Fruit Salt Umbrella" was in any way connected with the article manu- factured by :\Ir. P^no (the effen^escing drink)." -»2 So it has been held in this country that the word "Celluloid" is a valid trademark as applied to articles actually comipased of celluloid,'*^ but that the use of the Avord "Celluloid" to designate a starch is not an infringement, because celluloid had never been used in making starch and there was no testimony to show that the plaintiff had intended ever to use it in making starch. There was expert testimony to the effect that it was highly probable that a method might be devised by which celluloid could be converted into a starch-like body fit for use as a substitute for starch, but the court held this statement of probabilities "too indefinite to be the foundation of an injunction. "•*■* The whole que-stion depends upon how closely related are the classes of goods to which the complainant and respondent apply tlie mark.-*^ 40_Shipman, J., in Celluloid 43— Celluloid Mf;,'. Co. v. Cid- Mffr. Co. V. Read, 47 Fed. Rep. 712- lonite Mfjj. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 94. 714^. 44— Celluloid Mfp. Co. v. Read, 41_Ainswortli v. Walmsley, 3.") 47 Fed. Rep. 712, 716. L. J. Ch. 3r)2. •!') — Collins Co. v. Ames, 20 42— Lord Herschell in Eno v. Blatchf. 542; 18 Fed. Rep. SGI: Dunn, L. R. 15 App. Cas. 252, 2G0. Amoskeafi Mfg. Co. v. Garner, 54 How. Pr. 297; Carroll v. Ertheiler, § 192] lUtlKINS ON TKAPKM AKKS. 440 Tho onliiiary rules ;i.s tn tin- flVci-i of foi-nicr ailjudiration llOl'e^«iiU•ily apply to 4'a.si's of tlio Uiiul uikIit (•iiiisiik'ration. A liiial iK'ori'i' of dismissal in a state i-uiirt is a bar to a suhsciiuent suit in a fi'tli-ral court l)y thr same complainant ajrainst a j)arty iu privity with the defendant in the former suit,'" and the entire record in the fonner suit is admissil)le to show identity of sulgect- matter.^" The other defenses, l)csides those thus far indicated, such as license from the owner or his co-proprietor in the mark, delay, acquiescence or abandonment, liave been treated in coiuiection with the defenses at law. Hut it is proper to note here that where the complainant has been jruilty of serious laches his relief will he limited to the injunction, and an accountiii},' will be refused. ■*" Affirmative proof of laches may not exist, yet laches be found as inferable from the circumstances. "Tlie many years' failure to prasecute suptH'sts laches. On the face of thinj^^, it Avoukl seem that complainant must have known, or should have known, of the infrinfremcnt if substantial in character; and. if unsub- stantial, no accounting is needed.""'" Where the defendant undertakes to defend by attacking: the complainant's title to the mark and fails, the Supremo Court of lx)uisrami has lield that he should l)e treated as a ^vanton tres- passer.'^* Where the bill of complaint makes profert of the plaintiff's trademark and exhibits the alleged infringement, a denuirrer will l)e .sustained if an inspection of the exhibits satisfies the court that there is no infringement.^' 1 F«-d. R*'p. 088; Hfcht v. Porter. Cainca & Co.. Irtl Fed. R.-p. 40."). Ji Par. C. L. .7. 509; Osjrood v. -)()! ; 20 C. C. A. 320. KcK-kwood. F.-d. (aw No. lOC.O.'); 11 4H— TTfdt v. Mmcnd./. 2:J Fed. HIatxrhf. 310; Smith v. Reynolds, Rep. 80H. S71; N. K. Fairl.ank Co. FiKl. Caw No. 13098; lo Hlatdif v. Luckcl. Kin^' & Cak.- Soap Co., 100; 13 Blatchf. 4r)8; Swift & Co. 100 Fi'd. R.p. 408. V. Croff, 114 Frd. R<'p. 00;'). 49— Knapprn, J., in Divoc Snuff 46 — JaroH Hy^'i.riir Underwear Co. v. Wolff. 124 C. C. A. 302; 200 Co. V. Flevcf Hy^'ii-nie Underwear Fed. Rep. 420. 424. Co., 0.'» Fed. Rep. 424. r>0 — Handy v. Conimainler. 49 La. 47 — .laroH Hy^jienie Undirwear Ann. 1119; 22 So. Kcp. 230. Co. V. FIe«'ce Hyfrienie Underwear .".1 CoHiiiH Clieniii-al Co. v. C'ap- Co., 6.') Fed. Rep. 424; Adams v. ital ( ity Mf;:. Co.. 42 Fed. Rep. 04; Tannajje I'at. Co.. HI Fed. Rep. 179; .F. C. Ilul)in;;er Rroa. Co. v. Kddy. 26 C, C. A. 320; Kahn v. \V. A 74 Fed. Rep. r>5l. 441 ACTION IN IX^I ITV. [§192 \',u\ tlir courts arc iiol iiiclim''! to sustain demurrers upon the ^M-ouml tluit the plaiiitiir's inafU is not a valid technical trade- mark, uhei'f tlu' l)ill contains the si)e('i(ic cliar^e that the defend- ant has, hy its conchict in the premises, dcccivccl and misU,'d the puMic into liuyin<,' its ^oods a.s and tor tiic phuntilV's goods.''^ A delVct upon the lace of the hill, nucIi as a failure to show title to the mark in a complainant, must he met hy demurrer and can not be raised l)y a i)lea.''''' Where aflirniativc relief is sought l)y the defendant it should be J) rayed for hy cross-bill/'-* The defense of non-infringement is not properly ijiterposed by a plea, and should be presented by an an^^wer.-"'-"' A bill may be disnnssed because of fraudulent representations made by the complainant in connection with his use of a mark, even though the fact is not pleaded by the defendant. "If it appears from the record, it will be given effect notwithstanding it has not been pleaded. The theory upon which this is done is that in reality it is not a matter of defense. It is given effect to, not on defenilant's account, but because of the public."^'" The sufiPiciency of the plea is tested by setting it down for argument under Equity Rule X^ on which argument tiie aver- ments of the plea are taken as true.^^ There are a nuinl)er of lines of defense which have been ineffec- tive. Among them are to be particularly noted the following: 1. Infancy. ^""'^ 2. The registration of defendant's mark, because registration is oidy prima facie evidence of ownership. ■'"'•♦ r>2 — Putnam Nail Co. v. Bennett, 43 Fed. Kep. 800; Lowe Bros. Co. V. Toledo Varnish Co., 108 Fed. Rep. 627 ; 04 C. C. A. 83. 5.3— Hostetter Co. v. E. O. Lyons Co., 00 Fed. Rep. 734. 54— Corhin v. E. Taussip & Co., L32 Fed. Rep. 002: Hypienie Fleeced L^n- derwear Co. v. Way, L33 Fed. Rep. 245. 55— G. t C. Merriam Co. v. Straus, 136 Fed. Rep. 477. 56 — ^Memphis Keeley Institute v. Leslie E. Keeley Co., 84 C. C. A. 112; 155 Fed. Rep. 064. 074. 57— W. A. Gaines & Co. v. Rock Springs Dis. Co.. 170 Fed. Rep. 544. ;-,8_Chul)l) V. Grimths. 35 Reav. 127. -,9_r;ien Cove Mf^'. Co. v. Lud.l- inp. 22 Fed. Rep. 823; 23 Blatchf. 46; Bass, RatclifT & Gretton (Ltd.) V. Feifjenspan, 06 Fed. Rep. 206, 209, 212. s^ 1921 HOPKINS ON TKAI>K.MAHKS. 44'J 'A. Laches or delay, except in muisiuil case.s/*" 4. Showing tLat dcrcndaiit always placetl his own address upon his jj;oods, in conjunction with the infcin^'-in^' mark."' r>. Showinj;: that dercndant iia.s always used his own name or initials in conjunction with the inl'rinffing mark. This is not. ol" itselt". a ^iooil dd'cnse."- 6. Showing' that defendant has always used the word "Im- proved" in addition to the allef,'cMl infringing words."^ 7. Showing that tlie defendant's goods are not inferior in (piality to the complainants.''^ 8. Showing that the goods sold are goods nuide by the com- plainant, if they are goods to which the complainant did not intend tlic mark to he applied.'"'^ 9. Showing that the defendant did not intend to sell the goods hearing the infringing mark.*^" 60— McLian v. FK-niiu-:. W, U. S. 245; 24 L. Ed. 828; Lii- v. Haley, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 1.")'). Sw ante, §89. fil — Gray v. Tapcr-Slpi-vc Pulley Works, 10 Fed. K.-p. 43f)-442. 02— Menendez v. Holt. 128 U. S. .'■.21: S2 L. Ed. r.2G; Battle v. Finlay. .")0 Fed. Rep. 100; N. K. Fairliank Co. v. Central Lard Co.. 70 Off. Gaz. 6.35; 64 Fed. H<{». 1. "?.■{; Boardman v. ^Mcrideii Britannia Co.. II.") Conn. 402: Hier V. Ahraliams. 82 \. Y. r>10: Fleiseli- mann v. Selmekmann, 02 How. Pr. 02; Lea v. \V(dfT, l.". Al.l). Pr. N. S. 1; Carroll v. Ertheiler, 1 Fed. Rep. 388; Hepeman v. O'Byrne, Daly, 264; Pratt's Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 401 : \Valtan, flO Fed. Rep. 206-210; Leonar.l v. \Vliite'8 Golden Luliricator Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 1)22; Gillott v. EHterhrook, 47 Bar!). 45."); Diinlap 4 Co. v. Yoiin^', 74 N. Y. Suj.p. 184. 6.3 — HiiHsia (cmt-nt Co. v. Le- page, 147 Manh. 206; 17 N. E. Rep. 304; Gage v. Canada Pul). Co., 11 Can. S. C. R. 300; Improved Fig Syrup Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co., ;-)4 Fed. Hep. 175; 4 C. C. A. 204. 64 — Clev(dand Stone Co. v. Wal- lace, 52 Fed. Rep. 431-436; Taylor V. Carpenter (3), 11 Paige, 292; Coats V. Holbrook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 580; Partrid-r*' v. Menck, 2 Sandf. Ch. 022; Cook v. Starkweather, 13- AI)1>. Pr. X. S. 3!)2; Sliaver v. Sliavcr, 54 Iowa. 20S ; ColTeen v. Brvinton. 5 MeLean. 250; Gillott v. Esterl)rook, 47 Barb. 455; 48 N. Y. 374; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Loog (3), L. R. 8 App. Cas. 15; Edelsten v. Edelsten, 1 DeG. J. & S. 185; Blo- field V. Payne, 4 B. & Ad. 410. (55 — Krauss v. .Jos. R. Peebles' Sons Co.. 58 Fed. Rep. 585; Hen- n.ssy V. White, W. W. & A'B. I'i|. 21(!; Ilennessy v. Hogan, 6 W. W. & A'B. Eq. 225; (;iIlott v. Ket- tle, 3 Duer, 624; Hcnnessy v. Ken> nett. Sel». 5.50. 66 — Upmann v. FonsU-r, L. R. 24 Cli. I). 231; Upmann v. Curry, 29 Sol. J. 735. 443 ACTION IN El.il'irY. [§1951 10. Showing that tlie comi)luiiiaiil 's mark lias b<*eii uscil by others without iiis knowledge, consent or accpiicseence,"" for "a trespasser can not justify upon the ground that otliers have eommitted like trespasses.""** 11. Showing that the same mark has been used by others on goods of another class."" 12. Showing that a third person used the trademark prior to its appropriation by the complainant, when that third person has l)een refused relief in e(iuity against infringers, ^because of fraudulent rei)resentations inade by him in using the mark.^" 13. Showing that the infringing act Avas done bj' the defend- ant's servants, agents or employes Avithout hi.s knowl- edge' ^ 14. Showing that defendant partners have incorporated after the institution of the suit.'^- 15. Showing that the complainant gave the defendant no notice of his intention to bring suit.'^^ 07 — Cuervo v. Jacob Ilcnkell Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 471; Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 173; Cox, 530; Taylor v. Carpenter (1), 3 Story, 458; Co.\. 14; Seb. 78; Ford v. Foster, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 611. 68— Actieiifjesellschaft Vereinigte Ultramarin-Fabriken v. Amberg, 48 C. C. A. 264; 109 Fed. Rep. 151. Reversing same v. same, 102 Fed. Rep. 551. 69— Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellon- ite Mfg. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 94; Col- man v. Crump, 70 N. Y. 573; Hege- man v. O'Byrne. Daly, 264 ; Somer- ville V. Scliembri, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 453-457 ; Ainsworth v. Walrasley, L. R. 1 Eq. 518; Hall v. Barrows, 4 DeG. J. & S. 150; George v. Smith, 52 Fed. Rep. 830. 70 — Parlett v. Guggenheimer, 67 Md. 542-.544. The rights of the tliird party had been so adjudicated in Palmer v. Harris, 60 Pa. St. 156. 71— Low v. Hart, 90 N. Y. 457; Twentsche Stoom Bleekery Goor v. Ellingcr, 26 W. R. 70; Tonge v. Ward, 21 L. T. N. S. 480; Atkin- son V. Atkinson, 85 L. T. Jour. 229. But see Leahy v. Glover, 10 R. P. C. 141, where a single sale by defendant's clerk was held in- sufficient to warrant injunction. 72 — American Fibre Chamois Co. v. De Lee, 67 Fed. Rep. 329. 73— Coats V. Holbrook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 586; Cox, 20; Sawyer v. Kel- logg, 9 Fed. Rep. 601-602; Upmann V. Forester, L. R. 24 Ch. D. 231- 235; Cartmell, 331; Upmann v. El- kan, L. R. 12 Eq. 140; L. R. 7 Ch. App. 130; Burgess v. Hately, 26 Beav. 249; Seb. 169; Field v. Lew- is, Seton (4th ed.), 237; Seb. 280; In re Kuhn, 53 L. J. Ch. 238; Bar- rett v. Goom, 74 L. T. Jour. 388; Fennessy v. Day, 55 L. T. N. S. 161 : Siegert v. Lawrence, 11 Vic. L. R. 47. See, contra, Wallis v. Wallis, § 19^1 IlOl'KINS l)N TKADKMAKKij. 444 It). Showing' that a proper iiaiiK' allc^'fcl to lie an infringement is the lumu' of a person eonneeted witli (lelendant 's l)usi- ness, when in tact sm-li poi*son hius only given defendant permission to use his name as a means of attracting trade from tlie coniphiinant, in pnrsnanee of ch'fendant's scheme to fnuululently take away comphiinant's hnsiness/-* 17. Showing that plaintitV has added wortls, figures or de.sigiis, such as a coat-of-arms. to the trademark as registered."''^ 18. Shmving that the complainant's trademark or package is only partially copied or imitated in defendant's mark or liackage."'"' As liy the use (»f hut one of several words composing the plaint ilT's mark.'' "The rejiorts are full of cases where bills have been sus- tained for the infringement of oiu' of several words of a trade- mark." ''^ 19. Showing that complainant has been guilty of misrep- resentation in connection with his iise of the trade mark, 4 Dr. 458 ; Twentscho Stoom Blcck- ery (Joor v. EUin^riT. 2Vt \\. K. 70; C'liapjull V. Davidson, 2 K. & J. 123; Williams v. Oshornc, 13 L. T. N. S. 498; Gorham Mf},'. Co. v. Emcry-Bird-TliaytT Dry Goods Co., 02 Fed. Rt'p. 774-778. 74 — Sa\vy«'r v. Kcllopfj:, 7 Fod. J\op. 720; Price & Stciiart, 403; F<>d. R«'p. (!01 ; Rofi.Ts Mff,'. Co. v. Rofrcrs Mf^'. Co., 11 Fed. R<>p. 40.'); Williams v. Brooks, nO Coiui. 278; Mi'ridon Britannia Co. v. Parkor, 39 Conn. 450; 12 Am. Rep. 401; Garrett v. T. TI. Garrett & Co., 24 C. C. A. 173; 78 Fed. Rep. 472; Plia- lon V. Wright, ■) Pliila. 4fi4; Cox. 307; Wolfe v. Barnett, 24 La. Ann. 97; 13 Am. Rep. Ill; Melachrino '•. Melaclirino Ci>;aretto Co., 4 R. P. C. 215; Cartmell. 223; Perks v. Hall, W. N. 1881. p. Ill; Williams V. Johnson, 2 Bos. 1. ?.'">— Melaehrint) v. Melachrino Ciparette Co.. 4 R. P. C. 215; Cart- mell, 223; Newman v. Pinto, 4 R. P. C. .")0S; 57 L. T. X. S. 31; Cart- mell, 242; Carroll v. Krtheiler, 1 Fed. Rep. OSS-CO 1. 70 — McCann v. Anthony, 21 Mo. App. 83; Enoch Morjran's Sons Co. V. Elder, Cox. Manual, 714; Taend- sticksfahriks Aktieholapot Vulcan V. I^Iyers, 130 N. Y. 3G4 ; Pillshury V. Pillsl.ury-Washlmrn Mills Co., 12 C. C. A. 432; 04 Fed. Rep. 841; Centaur Co. v. Killenl)erp'r, 87 Fed. Rep. 725. 77 — Saxlelmer v. llismr & Men- delson Co. (3), 170 V. S. 10-33; 45 L. Ed. 00. 7S — Mr. .lustice Brown in Sax- lelmer V. Eisner & Meiidelson Co., 170 V. S. 10. 33; 45 L. Ed. 00; citinj,' Shrimpton v. T..ai;;ht. 18 Beav. 104; Clement v. Mad- dick. 1 CilT. 08; Hostetter v. Vowinkle. 1 Dill. 320: Fed. Cas. Xo. 0.714; Morse v. Worrell. 10 Phila. 108; Am. T-. Rev. 308; r;rillon V. C.uenin, Weekly NotoH (1877), 14; American Grocer Pub. 44;j ACTION IN Kt^llTV. [§11^- whero lluil iiiisrepresentat ion consists only In liarmless oxaggcration of the nicrils of his product (|)ulTin;;) ; "^^ or in pnn^ly collatc^ral n'i)rosontation. as ])v ncwspapor advert ising ; '^" oi' in r<^{;ard to the size of paeka}2:('s used by liim, where the sizes of those packages are the ordi- nary sizes known to the trade, the capacity of which is generally understood/' "Mere extravagance in advertising is not such fraud as deprives a complainant of all remedy. "^- Gencrally, as to the defense that the comi)lainant has been guilty of misrepresentation. Judge Sanborn lias said "the prin- ciple 'that he who comes into ecpiity must do so with clean iuinds' is familiar and indisjiutable. But it does not repel all sinners from courts of ecjuity, nor docs it dis(iualify any complainant from obtaining relief there who has not dealt unjustly in the very transaction concerning which he com- plains. The iniquity which will repel him must have an imme- diate and necessary relation to the equity for which he sues." **-^ Thus, the use of the word "co])yright" in connection with a tradename when no copyright actually exists, has been held not to disentitle the owner from relief in equity,**^ and so of statements of oi)inion concerning the curative properties of a medicinal compound to which the trademark is applied.*^ But the statement on the label of a small-pox remedy, "cures the worst cases without marking," is sufficient to disentitle the complainant from relief.^^ Asso. V. GrociT Pub. Co., 2.") Ilun, 82 — Pvay. J., in K. & .1. Burke v. 398. Bisliop. 17') Fed. Ki-p. 167, 175. 7!)— Comstock v. White, 18 How. S;i— Shaver v. Heller & Mer;-. Co., Pr. 421; Cox, 2.32; Metzler v. \A'ood, 4S C. C. A. 48; lOS Fed. Rep. 821, L. R. 8 Ch. D. fiOG; Seb. r)87 ; Hoi- 834. Citing Dering v. Earl of loway V. Holloway, 13 Beav. 209; Winchelsea. 1 Cox. Ch. 318, 319; Seb. 106; Ellis v. Zoilen, 42 Ga. 91; Lfwis and Nelson's Appeal. 67 Pa. Johnson & Johnson v. Seabury &, I •">.{. KKi : Batenian v. Fargason. 4 Johnson, 71 X. J. Eq. TfiO; 67 Atl. Fed. Kej). 32, 33. To the same Rep. 3(). <'ircet see Frazier v. Dowling, 18 80— Curtis V. Bryan. 36 How. Pr. Ky. L. Rep. 1109; 39 S. \V. Rep. 4."). 33; 2 Daly, 212; Cox", 434; Seb. 84— Wormser v. Shayne, 11 111. 291. Ajip. .1.56. 81 — Hennessy v. Wheeler. 51 8.") — Xewbro v. I'ndelresentations to the public, it is essential that the plaintitV shoidd not. in liis tradenuirk or in his advertisements and business, be him- self guilty of any false or misleading representation, and if he makes any material false statement in connection with the property which he seeks to protect, he loses his right to claim the a.ssistance of a court of ctpiity.""^ Hut where tln^ mi.s- 87— Moxif N<'rv»' Food Co. v. Hmil^r. T'. NM.r. 42tl; 1(10 N. W. Modox Co. (2 1, \r,:i Fed. H.p. 487. INp. .')().-.. 4H!t. To tlic HHine elFfct hci- .IoIim- !t0 — drecni'. 'I'wrcd & Co. v. Mimu- hon i .Johnson v. Si-nldirv <)i .Joliii- iiutiin rs' jiilt Iio..k Co.. 1">S Fed. Hon. «1 Atl. Hep. ."); (ill N. .1. K.|. It.p. C^O. On«; B. p., 07 Atl. Rep. :MI. 71 X !tl— (a K t r .. \ i 1 I • Co-oporiitiv,- .1. Kt\. 7'»(); Bc-eclinm v. .Jacnlm. l.'>'.t Cn-amiry Co. v. C7- ( <)., IS.-? V S. 1; 40 L. Ed. 40; 22 Sup. Ct. G. § 1921 HOPKINS l)N TH ADI.M \I{K 448 Where a tradoinaik as i-c^'istcrcil «'()Msi.st('il of a dosign with- out wording, and in use the word "Xotast>ine" was phieed tliereon — '*Notas<'Xue" haviu}? been refused rei^istralion by the Patent Offiee on aeeount of its allejjed deseriptive eharacter — and tlie words "Trade-Mai'k" imprinted upon the design, with the statutory imprint "Kej;. l'. S. Tat. OlT." under- neath the desi^rn, .lud^'e Hazel dismissed a bill for infrinjifement and unfair eompetition, saying "to merely display the word "Xotasenu^" on the face of th(^ design would not discjititle the complainant to relief, but the addition of the words "Trade-Mark," ])rinted on the flourished ending of the script, '«a<. I think, a material niisrepn-scntation." "*• 20. Showing that the infringement has ceased."" 21. Showing that the com])laiiiant has made a third jiarty his licensee for the territory in whicli the iMfringcment was committed.^ 22. Showing that the defendant lias made no sales of goods bearing the infringing nuirk. where it appears that he would have done so had the suit not been instituted. - "Proof of injury is unnecessary if tlic evidence establish the fact that injury will result unless such use (of the infring- 98 — \ o t a 9 I' m e Hosiery Co. v. Straus. 2:n Fed. Rip. 24.}, 24."); aflirnifd in Straus v. Notasom" Hosiery Co.. 240 U. S. 170; 60 L. Kd. — ; 30 Sup. Ct. 288. For the intermediate proeeedinps see 201 Fed. Hep. 00; 110 C. C. A. 134; 200 Fed. Rep. 495; 215 Fed. Rep. 301; 131 C. C. A. 503. 09 — Freso v. Baehof, Fed. Case No. 5110; 13 Bhitehf. 234; Burnett V. Halm, 88 F. d. Hep. 004; Iluteli- inson v. Bluml)ertr, 51 Fed. Hep. fi29-831; Clark Thread Co. v. Wni. Clark Co (1), 55 N. J Ko. 058; 37 Atl. Rep. 599. Conirn, we iirennan V. EmeryBird-Tliaye: Dry Gtwds Co.. 09 Fed. Rep. 971. wliich can not )«• reifaroen aH o( authority. For a very proper exception to the ruh-. under peculiar facts, »«■« Van Haalt V. Schneck, 150 Fed. Rep. 248. Tliomas G. Plant Co. v. May Merc. Co., 153 Fed. Hep. 220. Diseontinuance 1>y the defendant, two years In-fore tli<' hill was filed, • f the simulated m.irkinys, was held in tlie ei^^htli circuit to 1h' ground for rcfusin*,' injunction, in a case U't involving; a ti'chnical tradi-mark. Fer;:uson-MeKinney Dry Hoods Co. V. J. A. Seriven Co.. 105 Fed. Rep. (•..■.5; 01 C. C. A. 401. To the same elTeet. C. W. J. Murpliy Co. v. Metal Stamping Co., 214 Fed. Rep. 382. 1 — Mo.\ie .Nerve Food tO. v. Baumhach, 32 Fed. Hep. 205. 2 — Cuervo V. Landauer, 03 Fed. Hep. 1003; McLean v. Fleming 00 T'. S. 252; 24 L. Ed. 828. 449 ACTION l.\ Kt^iirV §192 iiig mark I will Ix' I'csl rained. " •' "Tln" ijifriiigoment of a trademark iinj)li('s injury." ' 2."{. Showiiif; that the dcfciidanl is iiH-rt:ly a dealer who has j)ureha.sed from the originator of the infriii*;ement,-'' or merely the a^'eiil of anolhei' in the sale of the infrini^- inj; ^oods.'' Altlioujrh a dealer may eseajx' injnnet ion where it would be jrranted airainst the manufacturer, in exceptional cases. '' 24. ShowinlaintilT, permitting the use of the mark, wlien that license has been revoked for failure to i)ay royalties and otlier bi'caehcs of the licensing contract.** 25. Showing that there has been an adjudication against the ])laintiiT in a court of a foreign country. The sub- ject-matter, in cases of the classes treated in this work, is a tort. Such subjects are not concluded by foreign adjudications, even Avhen the acts referred to are the same identical acts.'-* 26. Showing that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the infringing acts.'" 27. Showing tlie defendant's innocence of guilty knowledge or fraudulent intent.' ' 28. Showing that defendant has used i)laintiff's mark only in connection with matter explanatory of its use (as where the plaintiff marked his goods "Akron Dental .3 — Maddox, J., in Brown v. Braunstt'in. S:5 X. Y. Siii)p. 109(1. 4 — Thomas, .T.. in Lanahan v. Jolin Kissel \- Son., 135 Fed. Rep. 5— Hurnett v. Ilaliii SS Fed. Rop. (;04. (i— Walter Baker & Co. v. San- ders, SO Fed. Rep. 8S!t: 2(i C. C. A. 220. 7— Billiken Co. v. Baker & Bennct Co., 174 Fed. Rep. 820. 8 — Martha \Vashiner AhIichIoh .\ir cell Cover- ing Co., 09 Fed. Rep. 8.'); Lnre v. Harper &. BroH.. 8ft Fed. Rep. 481; .'{0 C. C. A. :<7:J; AnarjryroH & Co. V. Anar>o'n>«. 1«7 Fed. Rep. 7r.3, TOO; 03 C. C. A. 241. 28— H. Mueller Mftr. Co. v. A. Y. M.Donaly .^ .Mmrisnii Mf-. Co.. 132 Fed. Rep. fiS"), 588; Ba;:lin v. Cua- enier Co.. 72 C. C. A. 5.')."); 141 Fed. Rep. 407; reversing a. c, 150 Fed. Rep. 1015. 20 — National Starch Co. v. Koa- ter. 14fi Fed. Rep. 250. :»)— Ilagen V. Beth. US Cal. 330. 31 — Coodyear I'ul>l)er Co. v. Day, 22 Fed. Rep. 44; Wliiting Mfg. Co. v. .ToH. II. IlauIiiiHl Co.. 5(i \. Y. Sujip. 114. 32 — Coodyear I'lihlier Co. v. Day, 22 Fed. Rep. 44. For a nimilar order, Bee Cantrell & Coelirane, Ltd. v. Wittcmann, 100 Fed. Rep. 82. 453 ACTION IK KtiuiTY, [§ I9:j of equity oi" relief to those who come witli unclean hands is not for the benefit of those whose hands are alsc unclean." •'»•'* A preliminary injunction will not be {^ranted as between alleged conflicting labels where it is not clcai- lliat "anybody would mistake one for the other." •'• So the injunction will be denied wiiere the mark is used as the mime of a newsi)ai)er supplement by the plaintiff, and the name of a magazine by the defendant,''' or where the defendant shows uses in the trade by third parties of a substantially similar mark, prior to plaintifi"s alleged date of first use.'"' It is sufficient to sustain the application for the prelimin- ary injunction (so far as the jilaintiff's title to the mark is concerned) if he has established his right to the trademark in a former proceeding.''' "While the decision in such former proceeding is not conclusive and binding upon the court in the later case, it is persuasive and of great weight, and on the motion for a preliminary injunction, especially where it sus- tains the impression of the court upon the hearing, is decis- jyg 38 "Where a demurrer is interposed to the bill, upon the application for preliminary injunction, the allegations of fraud in the bill are confessed thereby ; and if the demurrer is over- ruled the complainant is entitled to the preliminary injunc- tion.39 Upon granting a preliminary injunction bond may be re- quired of the complainant. Where such a bond Avas given, conditioned for "the pay- ment of all damages and costs to be awarded against the complainant and in favor of the defendant upon the trial or final hearing," a demurrer was sustained to a declaration setting forth the obligee's claim to damage, because no dam- 33— Moxie Xerve Food Co. v. Hoi- Auwoll, l.')8 Fed. Rpp. 4f)2; affirmed land, 141 Fed. Rep. 202, 205. To 178 Fed. Rep. 543; 102 C. C. A. 53. the contrary see Greene, Tweed & 37 — Symonds v. Greene, 28 Fed. Co. V. Manufacturers' Belt Hook Rep. 834, 835; :Moxie Xer\'e Food Co., 158 Fed. Rep. 640. Co. v. Beach, 33 Fed. Rep. 248; Car- 34 — Philadelphia Nov. Co. v. mel Wine Co. v. Palestine Hebrew Blakesloy Nov. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. Wine Co., 161 Fed. Rep. 6.54. 365. 38— Price Bakinp Powder Co. v. 35_Star Co. v. Colver Pub. Fyfe, 45 Fed. Rep. 709. House, 141 Fed. Rep. 129. 39 — Enoch :Morfran'8 Sons Co. v. 3G— Benjamin Moore & Co. v. Hunkele, 16 Off. Gaz. 1092, 1093. § ii'3: IIOI'KINS ON TRADKMAHKS. 4:a ages were awartlod on the liiial lu'arin^'. '" The supi'enio court has eoiimieiKhHl. as a jiroper condition of such l)oiuls, one uhieli ran "to answer all damages wliieh the defendant in that snit might snstain in eonsiMiuenee of said injunetion being granted, shonhl tlie same l)e thereafter dissolved.''"*' A preliminai-y injnnction may be enhirged in its scope by a further i)reliminary injunction to cover a changed form of label adopted by the defendant. '•^ It is a general rule in the law of unfair trade, as well as in patent law, that where tlie infringement is admitted or proven the plaintiff is entitled to a reference for an account- ing as a matter of right. ^"^ But "cases frequently arise where a court of equity will refuse the prayer of the complainant for an account of gains and profits, on the ground of delay in asserting his rights, even when the facts proved render it proper to grant an injunction to prevent future infringe- ment." -^^ An accounting will also be refused "when it is manifest that the cost to the plaintiff of a hearing would be much more than the damages which he seeks to recover. An order of reference, under such conditions, would be inequitable."*^ 40— Cuervo v. Owl Cipar Co., G8 Fed. Rep. 541. 41— Beakin v. Stanton, 3 Fed. Rep. 43;"). In his opinion Judp;e Blodgett calls attention to the wide conflict of authority in the deci- Bions of the courts of the several states upon this subject, and cites Bein v. Heath, 12 How. 168, as con- trollinfr his decision. 42— Bein v. Heath, 12 Howard. 168-177; 13 L. Ed. n.-^!). 43 — Oakes v. Tonsmierre, 40 Fed. Rep. 447-4.'')3; Campbell Printinfr Press Co. v. Manliattan R. Co., 4J> Fed. Rep. 030-032 ; Kisk v. Mahler, S4 ?Vd. hep. .'■>2K; Standard Ci^ar Co. V. Goldsmith, FyS Pa. Super. Ct. 33. 44 — Mr. .Justice Clifford in Mc- Lean V. Fleming', 96 U. S. 245-257, 24 L. Ed. 828. To tlie same effect see Low v. Fels. 3.') Fed. R.-p. 361- 363. 45 — Knowlton, .T., in Cirajjosian V. Chutjian, 194 Mass. 504; 80 N. E. Rep. 647. To the same effect, see American Box Co. v. Crosman, 57 Fed. Rep. 1021, 1020; Bradford v. Belknap Co.. 105 Fed. Rep. 63, 66; Ludinpton Xovelty Co. v. Leonard, 127 Fed. Rep. 155. 1.57; 62 C. C. A. 260; .Tulious Kessler & Co. v. Gold- strom. 177 Fed. Rep. .302. 394; 101 C. C. A. 476; Keystone Type Foundry Co. v. Portland Pub. Co., 180 Fed. Rep. 301; National Dis- tillinry consideration of reason, justice and sound j)oli('y demands that one who fraudulently uses the trademark of another should not he allowed to shield himself from liability for the profit he has made by the use of the trademark, on the plea that it is impossible to determine how much of the profit is due to the trademark, and how much to the intrinsic value of the commodity." The supreme court held, therefore, that the trial court liad not erred in awarding the plaintiff the whole jirofit made by the dcfendant.'^^ In treating tiie same subject, Judge Sawyer said: "To adopt as the measure of compensation for such injuries the difference between the price for which the spurious goods would sell without the trade- mark and for which they would sell Avith it imprinted thereon, would be a mockery of justice. In my judgment the infringer should at least account for the entire profits made upon the goods wrongfully sold with the trademark impressed upon them."^-'* This now appears to be the accepted rule.*^" "The same rule is applied to cases of unfair competition merely, as well as to cases of the infringement of a trademark properly so called. "'^^ T)!— IToslottcr v. Vowinklo, Fed. 55 — Benkcrt v. Fedcr, 34 Fed. Caso No. fi714; 1 Dill. 329; Cox, Rop. 534. Manual, No. 207. 56 — Saxlehnrr v. Eisner & Men- 52— Atlantic Millinp Co. v. Row- d.laon Co. (4), 138 Fed. Rep. 22; land. 27 F«d. Rop. 24. 70 C. C. A. 452; Reading Stov.> .5.3— CarrctHon v. Clark. Ill V. S. Works v. S. M. Howes Co.. 201 Mass. 120; 28 L. Kd. 371. 437; 87 N. E. Rep. 751; Repis v. 54 — Tlraliam v. Plat<-. 40 Cnl. 503- .Taynes & Co., 191 Mass. 245, 249, 599. Approved in Ilamilton-Rrown 2.')0; 77 N. E. Rep. 774. Shoe Co. V. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 57— Sheldon, J., in Reffis v. U. S. 25] ; 60 L. Ed. — . Javnes, 191 Maes. 245; 77 N. E. ACTION IN EQUITY. [§193 Upon accounting, it is not inciinihent on the coniplain;uit to prove the exact "proportion of tlie infringer's gains attribut- jiulc to his infrinf^cMiont;" l)ut the whoK- profit is recoverable.'^^ The (h'fciKhiiit can not show before the master that the com- plainant slioiild not rccovci- profits because of his ahiindoriment of the mark; tlie iiiterlocutoiy decree is conclu.sive as to tliat,-'"'* and even if complainant has abandoned the mark and defemlant is not at liberty to palm off his goods as those of the com- plainant''" Coujisel fees expended by plaintiif in the cause are not an element of damage, and can not be con.sidered in assessing dam- ages in equity." • The court will refuse to decree an accounting wliere it is mani- festly impossible to segregate the profits arising from, the in- fringement.*"'^ In jurisdictions where the master is permitted to assess dam- ages, he may do so even in the absence of any direct proof of loss of profit.*' 3 As all participants in torts are principals, one Rep. 774. Citing X. K. Fairbank Co. V. Windsor, 118 Fed. Rep. 90 (overruled as to some points in 124 Fed. Rep. 200; 61 C. C. A. 233); Walter Baker Co. v. Slack, 130 Fed. Rep. 514; 6.5 C. C. A. 1.38; Williams V. Mitchell, 106 Fed. Rep. 108; 45 C. C. A. 265; Lewis v. Goodwin, 30 Ch. D. 1. Compare the Kentucky rule: "In the action for fraudulent simulation of the plaintiff's goods there can be no accounting of profits in equity. The remedy is by the common law action for damages." Hobson, J., in E. H. Taylor & Sons Co. v. Tay- lor, 85 S. W. Rep. 1085; 27 Ky. L. Rep. 625. 58 — Saxlehner v. Eisner & Men- delson Co. (4), 138 Fed. Rep. 22, 24; 70 C. C. A. 452. 59— DeLong Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co., 159 Fed. Rep. 292. 60 — Saxlehner v. Eisner & Men- delson Co., 179 U. S. 19, 31; 45 L. Ed. 60; De Long Hook & Eye Co. V. Francis Hook & Eye Fastener Co., 159 Fed. Rep. 292. 61— Burnett v. Phalon (1), 21 How. Pr. 100; Cox' American Trademark Cases 292. ()2 — Ludington Novelty Co. v. Leonard, 62 C. C. A. 269, 127 Fed. Rep. 155. 03 — Thus in a chancery case in New Zealand the court said: "First as to damages, I am of opinion that there has been no direct proof if loss of profit by Messrs. Little- jolin & Son, consequent upon the sale of the watches which improp- erly have their name inscribed upon them, but, as I have inti- mated during the course of the ar- gument, it appears to me that, apart from any direct proof of loss of profit, there arises in cases of this class an inference of pos- sible damage to the manufacturer whose name is improperly used — damage to his well-established § 194] HOPKINS ON TRADEMARKS. 458 wlio participates in uiifaii- ti'adt' liy t'uniisliinj^ fraudulent labels is liable in ('(juity to tlic pai-ty iujurtni for the uliule damage resultiiii: fi-oin tlu' unfair coiupotition.'" Whether or not a teehnical track'inark is involved, tiie success- ful complainant in an action for unfair eompetition is entitled to an aceount.'"'"' A bill for a naked acrount of profits ean not be sustained;*"' the aceounting will only l)e granted a.s an incident to the award of injunctive relief."" In rare cases the court will deeree the destruction of the goods bearing the infringing mark.'"'** The defense of laches can not be raised for tlie first time before the nuister,'"'" and the same is tnie as to the defense that the plaintiff 's goods were withdrawn from the market before the infringement commenced."^ § 194. The decree in unfair competition cases as to the accounting. — It has been held that Avhere the defendant's unfair competition was not willful or fraudulent, the account- ing would be limited to the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and would not extend to the defendant's profits.-' While the general rule has been stated to be that the defendant will be held to account for profits, "^ it is clearly for the court to determine reputation. It is iniitossiljle that 68 — Peerless Rulthor Mfg. Co. V. tlic (luantum of dainajic in cases Xichol, 187 Fed. Rep. 238. of this class can hi- matlicmatically fiH — DcLonjr Hook & Eye Co. v. ascertained; no account can pos- Francis Hook & Eye & F. Co., 168 Hihly reach such a matter. It must Fed. Rep. 808; 04 C. C. A. 310. always he a matter of discretion 70 — Ibid. for the court and jury." Little john 71 — "I do not think (plaintifi") V. MuUipan, 3 New Zealand Rep. is entitled to an accounting for 446. profits, because I can not find that 04 — llildretli v. Sparks Mfg. Co., the unfair competition was so 'will- 00 Fed. Rep. 484. ful and fraudulent' as to justify the 0.') — Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. imposition of jjrofits as a 'punitive Co., 103 U. S. 100, 204; 41 L. Ed. addition to tlie ordinary decree of 118; Worcester Brewing Corp. v. compensatory damages.'" Ilaiglit, Renter & Co., 84 C. C. A. OO.'i; l.')7 J., in Rubber & Celluloid II. T. Co. Fed. Rep. 217. v. F. W. Devoe & C. T. Reynolds Co., CO— Root V. L. S. & M. S. Ry. 233 Fed. Rep. MO. 100. Co., \0r> U. S. 189; 20 L. Ed. 07r). 72— "The general rule undoubtcd- 07 — Van Raalt v. Schneck, ir>0 ly is that, on such a reference in a P\'d. Rep. 248, 251. case of unfair competition, it is the 459 ACTION IN E(il'ITY. [§194 whether the account shall iuciiKJc daiuages only, profits only, or hoth. A decree reading a.s follows : "That the complainant recover of the defendant dam- ages sustained by said complainant from the unlawful acts of the defendant iierein adjudged, in its use of said two labels recited in paragraphs 2 and 3 hereof, in the packaging and sale of Neufcliatel cheese, togetiier with its costs of suit in this behalf expended, with leave to complainant to a])ply hereafter for a reference to a mas- ter to ascertain and assess said damages, should it be so advised, ' ' does not authorize an accounting as to profits.''-'^ duty of tlio master to fairlj' take an account of profits realized by the defendant upon all articles or goods manufactured or sold by him under the conditions of unfair competi- tion, as established by the decree of the court." Rowley v. Rowley, 113 C. C. A. 386; 193 Fed. Rep. 390 (C. C. A. 3). 73— P. E. Sharpless Co. v. Law- rence, 130 C. C. A. 59; 213 Fed. Rep. 423. "In theory, a technical trademark, like a patent ri<,fht, is a species of property, and when it is invaded or appropriated, the owner thereof is entitled, not only to protection from further trespass, but, to the recovery of the profits issuing therefrom, as incident to and a part of his property right. In suits for unfair competition, on the other hand, the complaint is not of an appropriation of a property right, but of a tort committed by the defendant, in that his conduct has been unlawful by reason of the consequential injury to the plaintiff. In such a case, it is contended the recovery should be for damages actually suffered by the plaintiff, and for those only, the wrong com- plained of b;ing somewhat analo- gous to that which would be the basis of an action on the case at common law. "It is true, however, as contended by the plaintiffs below, that courts of equity, in granting injunctive relief in cases of unfair competi- tion, have sometimes decreed tliat the plaintiffs should recover of de- fendant, not only damages, but the profits, gains and advantages that have accrued to the defendant by reason of his unfair competition. Such an enlargement of the scope of the decree is generally made on the ground tliat the unfair competi- tion is adjudged to have been willful and fraudulent, and the recovery of profits in such cases is a punitive addition to the ordinary decree of compensatory damages. A number of cases have been cited in the brief of plaintiffs below, where, under these circumstances, an ac- counting of profits has been allowed in cases of unfair competition. We have examined all of them, and it is to be observed that in almost every case the recovery of sucli profits was included in the decree in addition to the recovery of dam- ages, and in none of them was the precise question here presented dis- cussed. The distinction between the 195] HOPKINS ON TRADEMARKS. 460 i} 195. Forbidding publication of the decree. K\ «'r\(iiu» who lia.s fXpfrit'iUT in tlir wst- of tk'cii'i's \t\ way ot iiiilair I'oiii- pi'tition is awaiv of tlu' (hiiiiat;«' that may Ix' inllicti'd tliereby. A decree of injunction, howt'ViT tanfully drawn, i.s apt to con- vey to the public an entirely errontous impression of its .scope and elTwt, as wt>ll as of the fact.s wliicli (K-ca-sioned it. Where the defendant hits not lu-en jjuilty of intentional fraud, tlie |)laintilT nwiy be re<|uiri'd to abstain from harmful u.se of the injunction as a condition to the injuiictirtn remaining' in etTect.''* § 196. Restraining misrepresentations concerning the decree. A defendant ulio circulates false statomcnts rej;ard- iiiir an interim order made in the cause may be retrained in the cause, on motion, from further circulation of the false state- ments, and the costs of the motion may Ik- a.s.scssed ajjainst him."* §197. Punitive damages in equity. "The (piestion of the true measure of damages in cases of this sort is an interesting one. The injured party is entitled to full compensation for the injury, hut how shall that he measured? Manifestly, the profits which the infrins^er has made would not in all cases l>c com- pensation to the injured. The hitter's loss in part inheres in the failure to acquire a just and deserved j^aiu; also in the injury to the reputation of his product by reason of the substitution of the spurious article. The latter element is dilTicult, if not im- rocovcrv of dnmnpos and profits \vn;< thuB n'cofrnizcd. "\\'hat we conchido from the cases cited is. tliat courts of equity in cases of unfair competition mry upon what s4'emH to tln-m BU^;cient jrrounds. include in their decrees an accduntin;; of jirofits as well as an award of daniii;:<-s. We think, how- ever, that the distinction between a decree* for the recovery of damaj.'e8 and one for the recovery of profits, should not he lost si^dit of, anil in (.'••neral is not lost sijrht of. and that the latt^T is not included in the former." fJray, .1., in 1'. K. Sharj)- less Co. v. I-awrcnce, ttuprn, '1\'.\ Fed. lUp. at J. 12fi. 74 — "I see no reason why the j)laintifr should advertise its decree in any way. There is nothing un- fair in the defendant's prior adver- tisin;: to correct, and, when that is (lie case, neither side should Imj allowed to scare off customers by the flourish of a decree. Tlie plain- tiff will then-fore refrain from any advertis«'ment at the peril of h)sin|f its decree." Learned Hand, J., in Champion ."^park Plug Co. v. A. R. MoHler & Co., 2:i:J Fed. Rep. 112, lis. 7.">— fJilhtte Saf.ty Razor. Ltd. v. I'.llett. Ltd.. 2i)roxi- niatcly coiiipciisatcd liy an all(y\vun(;e in the natnn* of punitory (laniaj^i's, rcslinj,' lai'f^cly in discn'tion." ''' This liappens to hi; merely a diclitin, jls the issue Wius not Indore the court. Jiut it is the statement ol" a sound jirineiple, though one difficult of praetical application, and is llatly oppased to Ilcnnessy v. Wil- mcvduuj-LocH'c Co."' w jiich denies the right to recover punitive ilamas.s caus^'d thereby."^" §200. Label designing as a judicial function. — The willing- ness of eoui'ts of cipiity to aid in iiiainlainiiiLT lainiess in <'oiiipe- tition has been evidenced by a label designed by Judge Coxe and exhibited with his opinion in a ejise involving the Avord "Carls- baxl" as applied to mineral water, with the statenuMit that "in tirder that there may be no misunderstandiuu'" upon the settle- ment of the decree, the court has applied a copy of a label which, it is thought, the defendant n)ay use with impunity as truth- fully representing the water sold by hini."'^' In another case, Judge Lacombe, in offering alternative forms of decree for the choice of a defendant, said "the mandate will, if defendant prefers, direct a modification of the interlocutory decree solely by reciuiring the affixing upon every package sold, in type as prominent as the title, of the statement that 'W. II. Baker is distinct from and has no connection Avith the old chocolate manufactory of Walter Baker & Co.' " **- The Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit has criticised this practice. Judge Jenkins observing that, "The court below, upon holding that the changed label of the defendant infringed the com- plainant's riirlit, caused to be submitted for its approval another form of lal)el, which it approved, and authorized the defendant to use upon bottles of the same form as those used by the com- plainant. We greatly doubt the propriety of such action. When 78 — Socictc- Anonynn' v. WCstcni SO — .Sliddcii. .1., in .Nelson v. .1. Distillin},' Co., 4(5 Fed. R.j>. !t21 ; H. Wincli.ll & ("o.. 20:{ Mass. 7.'); RcpiH V. .Iayn«'s & Co.. 101 MaHH. SO \. K. Hfj). ISO. 1S7: following 24.'"». 2.">1, 2.')2; 77 N. K. U<-p. 774; l^dolstcn v. Edclsti-n. Kt I.. T. N. NVlBon V. .1. H. WinohHl & Co., S. 7S0. 2nrJ MaBH. 7'); Sn X. K. Rep. 180, 81— City of Carlslmd v. Sdinlt/, m7. 78 F«-d. lli'p. 4fi!). 472. 7n— Walt20; Saxl<'linc. 17 of the Act of 1!)().") provides that, '•TheCiri-uit Tourts of Appeals of the Initeil States and tlie Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia shall have appellate juris- (lietion of all .suit.s at law or in epeal nnist be taken within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree, and it shall take precedence in the np7iellate court: and the proceedings in other respects in the court below shall not be stayed unless otherwise ordered l)v that court, or the appellate court, or a judge thereof, during the pendency of such appeal ; Provided, however. That the court below nniy, in it^s dis^'retion, re<|uire as a condition of the appeal an additional bond." A decree which anK)f IIoHifry Co. v. 07 V. C. A. 2('.:J; mcMlifyin;.' tin- Walliidi Hnm.. 112 C C A. «:>.'.; decrw in Holeproof HohIitv C'(». v. 102 Fed. Hul)lir is likfly to he tleceivoil hy the similarity of two trade- marks, althoujs'h valualile in a doubtful easi'.' is not of itself suflieient evidenee of infringement. ** Winn trrimical trade or seientilic (jnestions are involved, iiowcver, expert evidence is hijrhly desirahle," ami espt-eially when the prahability of the ultimate consumer heinp deceived l)y the defendant's goods rests on the character and haliits of the people who use the product,'" or the manner in which t'.he goods are usually sold or exhihiteil by the retailer.'* Where the defendant "svas charged with refilling "A. V. ii." gin bottles, evidence of an expert ganger showing a variance in alcoholic proof between the genuine gin and that sold by defend- ant in the trademarked packages, was admitted. '2 Where the compl.iinant's ease rested on the testimony of hired witnesses that they had drunk bitters sold them by the defendant in his saloon as being complainant's bitters and that sut I liliould not act on such evidence, beeau8e it is pure nonsense." In rr Christiansen, 3 R. P. C. r)4-01. 7— Celluloid Mff.'. Co. v. Read, 47 Fed. Uep. 712 710. 8— Columliia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 40 Fed. R«-p. fi7f»; C(>i>e v. Evans, L. R. 18 Eq. 138. But in one case such evid«iic<' was admitted and approved (Williams v. Brooks. 50 Conn. 278; 47 Am. Rep. (5421, while in another its propriety was questioned ( Radam v. Capital Mi- rrol.e D.Htroyer Co.. 81 Tixas, 122; 20 Am. St. Rep. 7H3). n_Mitchell v. Henry, L. R IT' Ch. D. 181; 43 I. T. 180; Cartm.ll, 227; !n rr Worthin^'ton. 14 Ch. D. 8; 49 L. .1. Ch. 040; Ciirtm.ll, 3.'.1 ; In re ChristianBon. 3 K !'■ C. M; 14 Wall, f)!!; 20 L. Ed. 731; Wil- liam.-! V. Brooks, .'iO Conn. 278; Price & Steu:irt. 6.'>4 ; Celluloid Mf^'. Co. V. R.ad, 47 Fed. Rep. 712 710. 10 — Drummond v. Addison-Tins- ley Tob. Co., r)2 Mo. App. 10; Sper- ry V. Pcrcival Millinp Co., 81 Cal. 2.''>2-200. ll_/„ rr Worthinjrton, L. R. 14 (^h. n. 8. 12 — Van Holioken v. Mohns A Kaltenl.aeh. 112 Fed. Rep- ^'-^^ 13— Hostetter Co. v. Bower. 74 Fed. Rep. 23."). Tlie quantity of proof adduced, ainl its wc-i>rht, nec- essarily must he fixed hy th'« at- tendant eircumstanees of each case. Thus, in oni- case it was held thill a sinj^le wile of the infrinj:in>» article hy tin- ilif0."). "That fraud may not be pre- sumed does not imply that it may not be proved by circumstances, since it nuiy be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the transaction itself. In rr Walden Bros. Clothing Co.. 1!)!) Fed. Rep. :n.'): Lumpkin v. Foley. 204 Fed. Rep. .372. 122 C. C. A. r)42. Direct evid(>nce is not necessary to prove fraiul. provided the circumstances relied on are convincing, and incon- si.stent with a presumption of hon- esty. Crowder v. Allen-West Com- mission Co., 213 Fed. l{ep. 177; 12n C. C. A. .')21; Goodman v. Curtis, 174 Fed. Rep. f»44; 98 C. C. A. 308." Toulmin, .T.. In re Brincat, 233 Fed. Rep. 811. 810. 14 — Ilostetter Co. v. Comer ford, 07 Fed. Rep. 58."). 15 — Stevens Linen Works v. William & John Don & Co., 121 Fed. Rep. 171. 16 — Bickmore Gall Cure Co. v. Karns Mfg. Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 573. 17— Payton v. Snelling, 17 R. P. C. 035; Alaska Packers' Assn. v. Crooks & Co., 18 R. P. C. 135; Ilinnessy & Co. v. Dompe. 10 R. P. C. 3.33, 330; Hennessy & Co. v. Keating. 25 R. P. C. 125, 361. 18— Payton v. Snelling, (1001) A. C. 308; Bourne v. Swan & Edgar, (1003) 1 Ch. 211; Royal Ins. Co. V. Midland Ins. Co., 25 R. P. C. 728; St. Mungo Co. v. Viper Co., 27 R. P. C. 420. § 20r>] llOl'KINS O.N TK ADK.M AKKS. 470 A witness fninilinr witli the tnidc luay testify to tlic catch- word or other jui-uliar ik'signatioii l>y wliitli an article is known to the trade.'-' or to eonsuiuers ;-" and of course otiier witnesses similarly (jualilied may testify to the contrary. -' Testimony of witnetsses j)ro|U'rly (|ualilied is aihnissihle to show that owin^' to the iKd\'ndant"s infrin^'ement. pUiintifT's sah's liave fallen olT; this is true hoth at law-- and in e40-.'-.01. ("nno. No. (5714; 1 Dill. .T2n ; Cox, 20 — IfdiriHon i .lofinHon v. BntuT ^^amlnI. No. 207. k lilack. 27 {". C". A. .'{74; 82 Fod. 24— Sliiiw v. Pillin-. M//>r(;. K.p. flfi2; Hrad v. Hit-hardHon, 4.". 2.''>— T. P. Dunn Co. v. Trix Mfp. L. T. X. S. TA; Cox. Mnnuat. Xo. Co.. 0.3 X. Y. Siipp. X\. fins. 20 — C'nrmil Wine Co. v. PnlcHtino 21_\VilkinHon v. Cnrly. Kr.I. Il.-f.n-w Winr Co,. 101 Fod. R.«p. Caw Xo. 17071; 1 Curt. 0.1. 0.^.4. 22— Shaw V. Pilling', 17."» I'a. St. 27— Franck v. Frank Cliicory Co., 78-ft4; .34 Atl. Hop. 440. ».") Fed. Rip. 818. 471 MATTKUS OK I'ltACTICK AND EVIDENCE. [§207 for their m'coiiianodatioii and .safe-kccpiii','. In Missouri, where this condition prevails, the St. Louis Court of Appeals ha,s recoiii- inended the preservation of llif brands or labels us a i)art of tii«- record on appeal.-'' The federal eourt.s, Iiowcvit, afford fvcry facility n-fpilrcd for the eare of exhibits and the following' rule is in clVect in all lli<- federal circuit court.s of appeals: "1. Models, diagrams and exhibits of material forming part of the evidence taken in the court below, in any case pending in this court on urit of error or appeal, shall be placed in the custody of the niai-shal of this court at least ten days before the case is heard or submitted. ''2. All models, diagrams and exhibits of material placed in the custody of the marshal for the inspection of the court on the hearing of a case must be taken away by the parties within one month after the case is decided. When this is not done, it .shall be the duty of the marshal to notify the coun.sel in the case, by mail or otherwise, of the requirements of this rule, and, if the articles are not removed within a reasonable time after notice is given, he shall destroy them or make sucTi other disposition of them as to him may seem best."^^ It is frequently expedient to annex to the order of injunction specimens of tlio nuirks used by the defendant. •■^" §207. Discovery. — The resistance of discovery is usually met with by I'oanplainants in trademark causes. Lord Romilly compelled a defendant to make a full discovery of all his sales, the prices, profits realized and the names of the purchasers, notwithstanding the objection of the defendant that ihe would thereby disclose his bu.siness secrets;^' and full dis- covery has been compelled in other eases.32 The power to compel 28— Aldon v. Gross. 2.'. Mo. App. but that of the seventh circuit, 123. And in this connection see where it is numbered rule .32. Mahler v. Sanche. 22.3 Ills. 13fi; 70 30— Hansen v. Siepel-Cooper Co. N. E. Rep. fl. reversed because of (1). lOfi Fed. Rep. f>90. 601. insufficient facts in the record as to 31— TTowo v. "NrcKcriian. 30 Reav. similarity of instruments dealt in •">47. by the respective parties. The facts 32— Leather Cloth Co. v. Hirsch- are embodied in Sanche v. INfahler, feld (2). 1 11. & M. 20.5; Seb. 224. 210 Ills. 340; 76 N. E. Rep. 48r.. Orr v. Diaper, h. R. 4 Ch. D. 92; 29 — The above rule is numbered 46 L. J. Ch. 41; Seb. 519. rule 34 in each court of appeals §208] IIOI'KINS ON TKADI.MAHKS. 472 discovery is inluTi'ut in i'(|uit\, l>ut is not vrstcd in roiirls of law ill tlie absi'iK'e of statutory I'liactinent.''-' ' MciiiitaMf jurisdiction will not attai-li for discovfry simply, I'Xci'pt in aid of a suit at law."" In artions at law production of li(»oiy ploa.'*^ § 208. Evidence of recognition by others of plaintiff's right to the mark. — The rule is well settled that a former adjudi- cation <'stahlisliiiir \>y new eciuity rule 30, whicli WM-, post, S 211. 3.1 — Lufker V. Plurnix Assur- ance Co., 07 Fed. Rep. 18; Ex- clianj;e Hank v. Wieliita Cattle Co., (51 Fed. K. p. 1!>0; United States \. National F.ead Co., T'l Fed. P''n. I'l. 3rt_\VaHlil.urn A Moen Mf},'. Co. V. Fn-<'niun Wire Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 410; I'atnn % Majorf*. •»<', Fed. Hep. 21(1. IJut sec Colgate v. Compapnie I'rancaise, 23 Fed. Rep. 82. 37 — Kirkpatrick v. Pop.- Mf;.'. Co., 01 Fed. Hep. 40. 38— ByasH v. Sullivnii. 21 How. T'r. r.O; Cox, 278. .'{0 — See (inir, ('liai)ter VII. and Dolison V. riraliam, 4!l Fed. Rep. 17. 40 — Ihid. See also I'nion Paper Collar Co. v. Metropolitan C3; RvasH V. Sullivan. 21 How. I'r. r.O; Cox, 278. 42— Howe V. McK. man. 30 Renv. .147; Slater v. Iliinwell, T.O Fed. Rej). ir.O. 473 MATTKKS OI- I'UACTICK AND KVIDENCE. [§ 209 were presented us in tlic later suit, is of i)ersuasive if not bindint^ I'ortH! ill a later ease.'' Hut a mere .showint; that tlie claimant {)[' the trademark has l)y threats ol' lej^al prosecution compel I(m1 or imliiird Dtiicrs to ciitci- iiitu undertakings to desist from the use of the name, or that others have suhmitted to injunctions without a contest, is very slij,dit, if any, evidence of the jdain- tiH"s ri;,dit to use the mark. In a I'rcciit case ix-fon- the House of Lords, Lortl J-)avi'y said in re^'ard to evidence of easels in which other j)ei'sons had sui)mitted to injunctions and had paid the costs: "That does not appeal- to me to he very strong evidence in favor of the [)ui"suers. Of course, a shoi)-keeper or a {)erson in that position would hesitate a long time l)efore he incurred tiie expense, wiiich in the case of a trademark or in a patent case is not slight, of dcd'ending an action of this character; probably the value to him of the trade he wouhl lose would not in any «way compensate for the risk he would incur. Therefore, as evidence of the fact. I do not attach much importance to those cases." "•■* An interlocutory decree of one court appears to be entitled to })ut little weight in a proceeding before another.^^ § 209. Contempts. — It is provided by sec. 725 of the United States Re\ised Statutes tliat the courts of the United States shall have the power to punish, "by fine or imprisonment, at the dis- cretion of the court, contempt of their authority; provided, that such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbehavior of any person in their pres- ence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or hy any party, juror, -witness, or other person, 4.3 — Moxii' Xervo Food Co. t. States. City of Carl.'^had v. Kut- Boach, .3.-} Fed. Rep. 248; Symonds now, fiS Fed. Rep. 794. And to V. Greene, 2S Fed. Rep. 834; La the same effect see Hohner v. Repnl)li(iue Francaise v. Saratoga Cratz, '}() Fed. Rep. .369. Vichy Springs Co., 99 Fed. Rep. 44 — Cellular Clothing Co. v. 7.3.3. But a decision of the En- ilaxton, L. R. (1899) A. C. 3-26-346. glish high court of chancery ad- 4.5 — Walter Baker & Co. v. San- verse to the claimant of a mark is ders, 80 Fed. Rep. 889; 26 C. C. A. not a bar to a suit for infringement 220. of the mark brought in the United §209] 1I01'KIN> <»N lUADKMAUKS. 474 to any lawful writ, procfss. onltT. nilc. ilccri'c. or ('oiiiiiiMiitl of sail! courts. ■' Contempt of ronrt is a spivifie oriininal ofTi-nse.^" Imposition of a fnif for contempt is a jiuljr'neiit in 4; Butl.r v. PXv.Tweathtr, iU 212; Cox. Manual. No. 403. Kid. H.p. 4r.«: 83 C. C. A. 025; 03 52— IIcnncHsy v. nuddo, 82 Fed. U. S. App. 123. H.p. .541. 4R— CoatH V. Cliadwick, L. R. 53— Marcivitdi v. RraniMr. Wil- (lRft4) 1 Cli. I), 347. kinH & Co., C..x, Manual. No. 505. 40— Oorliam Mfy. Co. v. Fm.ry- 54— Devlin v. D.vlin. 00 N. Y. Bird Tliayir Dry CJoodH Co., 02 Fed. 212; Cox, Manual, No. 403. INp. 774-770. 475 MATTKKS OPM'KACTICi; AM) i;\ IDENCE. f § 209 tin", he will be diseharged."''' Where, hmvever. tlie change is only suHieient to avoid the letter of the decree, and the defend- ant '« mark or package is still calculated to promote decei)tion, under the English practice the injimction may be enlarged upon the hearing of the contempt prwedings so as to cover tiie new- fraud, even though the motion to commit must be refused.^" The rulings of the courts in this regard have taken a wide range. There have been cases in which the court has declined to connnit upon the defendant making an offer to devise such changes in his mark as would meet with the approval of the court,'"' and others where the court has directed the defendant to make such changes with the alternative of being conuiiitted.-"''* Where an injunction is in part mandatory and in part prohibitive, and the mandatory portion is suspended hy an appeal, the court can not punish the defendant for contempt for the violation of such mandatory portion, although his act is a joint violation of both portions.''*^ And a defendant who sells a stock of bottles, labels and wrap- pers to a third party, after a decree enjoining him from dealing in an infringing liquor put up in the bottles, under the labels and enclosed in the wrappers, under circumstances indicating that it was for the purpose of enabling the purchaser to supply defendant's former customers with the infringing goods, is guilty of contemf)t/''" One who is enjoined from preparing. j)utting up, selling, offering or advertising for sale, any medicinal beverage made from fermented milk under the name of -"Matzoon" is guilty of contempt if he aids another in doing the forb6 — Cartier v. May, Cox, Manual, 00 — Sooiptc Anonymt^ v. Western >»'o. 200. Distillin;: Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 96. T)?— Croft V. Day (2), Cox, Man- 61— Dadirrian v. Oullian. 79 ual. No. 77. Fed. Rep. 784. 58 — Rodpers v. Nowill (2), Cox, 62 — Ihifl : eitin-,' Slater v. Mer- Manual, Xo. 115; 3 DcG. M. & G. ritt, 75 X. Y. 268. 614. §210] HOPKINS ON TRADEMARKS. 4 < tj tinues to use statioiu'ry hearing tlu- ii;iiiu', left legible through Imving ink spria«l omt it, is guilty (if rinitenipt,''-' as is one ^vho puMishes a einular relltH-ting upon the decree under Avhich he is en joined.'' • The foregoing rulings have been nuiile in unfair trade eases. It would he foreign to our purjjose to go into an extended dis- cussion (»f the law governing eontenipts, which npi)lies to this as to all other classes of cases. It is well to note, however, that in the federal courts, at least, while proceedings in contenipt are not reviewable on error or appeal, they may he reaohed by cer- tioran.'^^ §210. AflBd'ivits. — Applications for restraining orders and prelriimiary injunctions are usually founded upon and re.sisted by allidavit.s. A preliniinary injunction will not be awarded on ex parte affidavits unless in a clear case.'"' The complainant's affidavits in chief must show all the fact.s necessary to establish a prima facie riglit to the injunction .sought."' The defendant's affidavits nuiy he by way of traverse, in which case no counter affidavits can he offered by the complainant: or they may set up matter by way of confession and avoidance, in whic^i ease the complainant nuiy produce affidavits in reply. Hut where such affidavits are otYered by the complainant in reply, no further affidavits can he olTered by the defendant by way of rejoinder.''** All affidavits so used must be entitled in the cause; otheuwise they are mere e.xtra-judieial oaths. P'TJiiry could not be assigned upon them, and they can not be considered as evitlence."'' The 63— Ilildreth v. McCaul, 74 N. Y. f.f.— Lan- v. Ilarptr A Bros.. 8ft Supp. 1075. Fed. Il.p. 481; 30 C. C. A. 373; 64 — .lanrn-y v. Pan-Coast Ven- New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. tilator & MfK- Co. (2), 131 Fed. Ambler Aslnstos Air-cell Covering Rep. 143. t'"-. '•'' Fed. Rep. 8.''.; Dinmond (5.V_/„ rr Chetwood, Iflf) U. S. Miiteli Co. v. Safe Harbor Match 443-402; 41 L. Ed. 782; Sehwart/ Co.. 10!) Fed. Rep. ir)4. V. Superior Court. Ill Cal. 100. 07— Leclancha Ratl.ry Co. v. Compare Hiitl.r v. I'Xvfrweather, WeHtmi Kl.ctric Co.. '21 Fed. Uep. 91 Fed. K.p. 4.'i8; 33 C. C. 538. A. 025; 03 V. S. App. 123; 08— Day v. N.w Fn>;land Car holding tliat writ of error will li.- Spring Co.. 3 Hlateh. l.'.4-l.'in, Fed. to review an ordi-r rommittiny for Case No. 3,080. contemi.t a witniHs. not a party to 00— Tlawby v. Donnelly. 8 Paipe, the cHxm: for his refusal to an- 415; Ruerk v. ImbaeuBer. Fed. Bwer rpieHtions. Case No. 2107^ .■ 10 OlT. f.az. 007; 477 MATTERS OF PRACTICE AND EVIDENCE. [§211 iiiuviiig alliiliuils iti coiilriiipl iirocecciinps must directly charge the acts ol violation of the decree; il" on iiilonnation and belict' they arc insnUicient.''" §211. The taking of testimony. — In actions at law depo- sitions may be taken on ilue notici! at any time sul)sequent to the filing of the petition, an'ci it is immaterial whether the cause is at issue or not. Tiie Act of March !>, ISirj, c. 14, 27 Stat, at L. 7, U. S. Comp. St. l!)f)l, p. UG4, permits depositions of witnes.ses in eases pending in the courts of the United States to be taken in the mode prescribed by the laws of the state in which the courts are held. For practical ordci-s made under this section the case cited in the note will furnish illustrations.'^' The new equity rules, as promulgated l)y the supreme court at the October term, 1!)12, regulate the taking of testimony in equity causes in the federal courts, as follows: 46. TRIAI^-TESTDIONY USUALLY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT —RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE. In all trials in equity the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, except as otherwise provided by statute or these rules. The court shall pass upon the admissibility of all evidence offered as in actions at law. When evideace is offered and excluded, and the party against whom the ruling is made excepts thereto at the time, the court shall take and report so much thereof, or make such a statement respecting it, as will clearly show the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, the ruling, and tlio exception. If the appellate court shall he of opinion that the evidence should have been admitted, it .shall not reverse the decree unless it be clearly of opinion tJiat iiiaterial jirejudice will result from an aflfiniiance. in which event it shall direct such further steps as justice may require. '^ Goldstein v. ^Vhplan, 62 Fed. "Rep. 70— Davidson %•. :Mimsry. 20 T'tali 124. To the contrary see Sliook v. 181 ; SO Pac. Rep. 74:J. ■Rankin, Biss. 477, 480, 481, Fed. 71— Wallace v. D. Appleton c^. ' Case 12. 804; IModox Co. v. Moxie If.l Fed. Rep. 884. Nerve Food Co., 1(52 Fed. Rep. 049, 72 — A mw nili-. al>olisliinir ' 651; 89 C. C. A. 441. practice of former rule 67 a:;'. §--'H] IIOI'KINS ON TKAUKMAKKS 478 47. DEPOSITIONS— TO BE TAKEN IN EXCEPTIONAL INSTANCES. The t'Oiirt. upon application of oithor party, when allowed by statute, or for irood and ('X('»'i)tioiial cause for departing from the general rule, to he shown liy atHicLivit. iiia\- permit the depo- sition of imnied witnesses, to l)o useil l)efore the eourt or upon a reference to a nuuster, to he taken hefore an examiner or other named oflieer. upon the notii-e and terms specified in the order. All depositi(Mis taken under a statute, c under any sueh order of the court, shall he taken and tiled as follows, unless otherwise ordered by the court or .iudge for good cause sho^vn : Those of the plaintiff within sixty days from the time the cause is at issue ; those of the defendant within tiiirty days from the expira- tion of the time for the tiling of plaintiff's depositions; and rebutting depositions by eitiier party within twenty days after the time for taking original depositions expires.^^ 48. TESTIMONY OP EXPERT ^YITN ESSES IN PATENT AND TRADEMARK (^ASES. In a case involving the validity or scope of a patent or trade- mark, the district court may, upon petition, order that the testi- mony in chief of expert witnesses, whose testimony is directed adopting tlio Enfilish practice of oral tt'stimonv in open court save where special cause exists for takinfr the testimony otherwise. For the Enfrlish practice, see Order XXXVIT, Rules 5 to 2."), both in- clusive. By empowcrin},' thi' trial court to pass upon the admissibility of the evidence, and providing.' for ajipellate review of questifins of evidence, tlio rule restores the practice as it existed prior to 1842, as explained in Blease v. r.arlinpt«m, 02 U. S. 1 ; 23 L. Kd. r)21. For a discussion of the reasons which led to the adoption of this rule, see Nortli v. Herrick, 203 Fed. Uep. fiOl. 73 — A new rule, supplementary to Rule 46, next preceding. This rule docs not vary, abro<»atc or limit the application of § 803, R. S. U. S., and depositions taken under that statute need not he taken liy leave of court, or within the time limited hy Rule 47. Iowa \Vashin«'iially proviilctl." Ah tn hUfl .^|H'oiaI provisioiiH nn art' tluTf- l>y »'Xct'|)U'«l from llu- powi-r of tlio Huprvnit' court to make rtiK-s, that court lias wild "wlu-n the stututcs of tlic Uiiittnl States make special pr(»- visiona as to th»' comju'tcncy or adniissihility of testimony, tliey must he followed in tlie courts of the United States." Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in Whitford v. County of Clark. 110 U. S. 522; .SO L. Ed. 500. Section 8G3 contains the follow injr provision: "The testimony of any witness may he taki'u in any civil cause depending in a district or circuit court hy dei)osition ound on a voya;;e to sea, or is about to ^o out of the United States, or out of the district in which the case is to he tried, and to a f^reater distance tiian one hundred miles from the place of trial, before the time of trial, or when lie is ancient and infirm." Of sec. 803, Mr. Justice Miller has said. "No one can examine these provisions for procurin;,' tes- timony to he used in the courts of the Ignited States, and have any reasonahle doubt, so far as they apply, they were intended to povcrn the practice, in that respect, in those courts. They are, in the first place, t«f) cnmpl<'t<'. too far-reaeliinf^. and too minute to admit of any other conclusion. But we have not only tliis inference from the character of the le^rislation, but it is enforced i>y the express lan;.'uaf;e of tlie law in providing; a defined mode of proof in thf»H<' courts, and in specifyin;; the only exceptions to that mode whieli shiill Ik- admitted." Kji parte Fisk. ll.i r. S. 7l:{; 2S L. Kd. 1117; followed in Kaiiks Dental Assn. v. Internatioiuil 'i»)otli Cn)wu Co., lO-l U. S. ao;j; 48 L. Kd. S>8U. We see, therefore, that 8t>c. 803 doe» not distinguish between classes of witnesses. Tlie (|m'stieing certifie8. Statutorji provisions. — Section 863, Revised Statutes of the United States: "The testimony of any witness may he taken in any civil cause depend- injr in a district or circuit court by deposition ni|>flliHl tt> npixiir muI il<' )His4- UH pnividcii liy tliirt Kcotioii, in tlif Kiiinr inaiiiHT uh witiit-hHi-H niH\ Ik" ctitu|Mll((l to apprur and tt-Htify in court." St'ction SV)',\ always a|i|ilif'.i Fi>d. Rop. 84, 8."». No order of court is ni-cessary under sec. 8(53. "The right to take (the d(>position ) upon notice merely, in the manner pre- 8cril)e4, is ^iven ahsolutely to the party i>y act of con','ress." Lacombe, J., in Henninji \. Hoyle. 112 Fed. Rep. 3't7. "There are two {general methods for takinj: depositions to he used on the trial of law cases provided for in the Revised Statutes; the one lie- ing the mode pointed out in see. 8().'5, and the other in sec. 8(iti. When taken under the provisions of the former section, a commission to the oflicer is not sued out from the court in which the cauw is pending,', hut the party desirin;: to take the testimony gives notice to the o|(posite |>arty or liis attorney of the time and place when and where the testimony is to he taken, and selects as the com- missioner any one of the parties named in the section. Wln-n deposi- tions are thus taken, no opportunity is H(Torarty selected to certify that he is nt>t of couhm'I for either jmrty, nor interesti'd in tile e\c-nt of the suit. If, however, the depositions are not taken uniler sec. 8(53, hut under the authority granted in sec. 8(5(5, then, i»y the exprcsa tt-rms of the latter section, the pro- visions of sees. 8ti3, 804 and 803 are in)t applicaide'thereto. Section 800 provides for the court granting a (Ivilimus, and in so doing it is pre- sumed that the court will seh^t a proper per.son to act as the commis- sioner, and the parties can he heard upon the question of the appoint- ment before the commission issues. The authority conferred hy sec. 80(5 is the granting a drdimun to take dej)ositions according to common usage. In MeI.eniuui v. Railroad Co.. 22 Fed. Rep. l!i8, it was held: '• 'When, however, tiie facts are such in a given case that, under the provisions of statutes of the United States, the right to take the testi- mony of witnesses l>y deposition exists, then, as to tiie mere mode of procuring the di'j osition. parties may follow, at their election, either tlie provisions of the state law or of the act of congress." "Tn other words, if the right to takf (iipositions existed, then the party desiring to take the same miglit ilo so under tlie jirovisions of si'c. SC.t. (ir aeeordiiiL' to coninion usage, wliieh, in an action at law, would he deemed t«) he in accordance with the mode provided for hy the statutes of the state." .Sliiras. .1., in Ciles V. Paxtcni. :5«5 Fed. Rep. 882. 883. "Reasonable notice" depends upon the |iartieular tlw laws of in at issiir, tliis niU' may Ik- oon- th»' Htatf, uiul in no wise rcluifs to strm-d to nu-an tliat no lusi- can go t«'Ktimony iHTpctuatfd l)y (liri-ction on tlu- trial rali-mlar until tliat tiinu «if a circuit court in i>urrtuanc(' of tli<' lias elapsed. htatutcH of the Uniti-tl States under What showing' must he made under which this liill is filed." Benedict, this rule on the application for leave .(., in New York & Balto. Co. v. to take testimony, and wlien Buch New York Co., \) Ked. Rep. 578, .'iTrt. leave is propt-r to I»o granted, and HI — A new rule aholishing the that it may he made without pre. order of puhlieation re<|uind hy for judiee to the opposing party even mer Rule (»!t. tliough he attends tiie taking of the H2 — A new rule. testimony, are matters dis<-UHsed in Am Bule 17 allows a t<.tal of 110 rnitarties oi" facts and docunients material to the sujiport or delense of the cause, with a note at the foot thereof stating which of the interrogatories each of the parties is recpiired to answer. But no i)arty sliall tile more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without leave of the court or judge. If any party to the cause is a public or private corporation, any opposite party may apply to the court or judge for an order allowing iiim to file interrogatories to be answered by any officer of the corporation, and an order may be made accordingly for the examiiuition of such officer as 7nay appear to Ije proper upon such interrogatories as the court or judge shall think fit. Copies shall l>e filed for the use of the interrogated party, and shall be sent by the clerk to the respective solicitors of record, or to the last known address of the opposite party, if there be no record solicitor. Interrogatories shall be answered, and the answers filed in the clerk's office, within fifteen days after they Hiave been served, unless the time l)e enlarged by the court or judge. Each inter- rogatory shall be answered separately and fully and the ans^vers shall be in writing, under oath, and signed by the party or corporate officer interrogated. Within ten days after tlie service of interrogatories, objections to theni, or any of them, may be presented to the court or judge, with proof of notice of the purpose so to do, and answers shall be deferred until the objec- tions are determined, which shall be at as early a time as is prac- ticable. In so far as the objections are sustained, answers shall not be required. The court or judge, upon motion and reasonable notice, may make all such orders as may be appropriate to enforce answers to interrogatories or to effect the inspection or production of documents in the posse.s.sion of either party and containing evi- dence material to the cause of action or defense of his adver- sary. Any party failing or refusing to comply with such an order shall be liable to attachment, and shall also be liable, if a plaintilT, to have bis bill dismissed, and if a defendant, to have his answer stricken out and be placed in the same situation as if he had failed to answer. §211j IIOI'KINS ON TKAnKMAlCKS, 488 liy a tlciMimd scrvi'd ten days hdoiv the trial, oitlier [tarty may call on thf otIuT to admit in uritiiij^ t.lu> (.'xecutioii or ^ji'im- inemvis of any ilocumcnt, letter or other writing, siuiikg- all just exceptions; and if sueli iulmission 1)e iiotinade within five days after sueh service, the costs of jirovinj; the dcKMiment, letter or writinp sliall he paid hy the party refusing or negleeting to make such admission, unless at the trial the court shall find that the refusal or neglect was reasonahle/^ § 212. Eflect of former adjudication. A fonnor decision adjudging the plaintiff's title to the trademark is a sufficient basis, where infringement is clear, for a preliminary' injunction.''* Of course the former adjudication Ls not conclusive, lyut it is always of persuasive value.*''^ When a fonner adjudication is urged as a bar to a later suit, the questions to be determined are, wliat was the judgment, was it within the jurisdiction of t^ie court, was it between the same parties or their pri\ie.s, and is it still in force and efTect?'*'^ Where privity exists between tlie successive defendants, the de- cree in the earlier ca.se must be given the same force and effect as if the original defendant were the defendant in the later case.*" The effect of a voluntary dismi.ssal of a bill for trademark infringement has been held in England to l)e the abandonment 83 — A now nilo ndoptinp the Enp- fiiahle tlip court to niako ii Hummary lisli practice nf Order XXI, "Dis- dinposition of a cauHfJ)y a|)j>lyinp covprj' and Tnnpfction." the law to an admitted state of Under this rule the plaintitT'w in- facts." Bronk v. Scott Co., 211 Fed. terropatoriPB are no lonper a part Rep. 338; 128 C. C. A. 17. of the hill, nor defendant's a part 84 — Symonda v. Greene, 28 Fed. of the answer; in other words, they Rep. 834, 835; Moxie Nerve Food nri- no lonpr phadinps. Liiten v. Co. v. Beach, 33 Fed. Rep. 248; Camp. 221 Fed. INp. 424. Iiiterro-j- Carniel Wine Co. v. Palestine He- atories may l.e filed after issuefl hrew Wim- Co., 101 Fed. Rep. n.")4. are joined. Ibid. By inference from R'i — Price Baking Powder Co. v. this rule, there ia no lonper any Fyfe, 4r) Fed. Rep. 700. n-qiiirement that the answer in Rfl — Mr. .Justice Day, In Deposit j-quity he made under oath. Pitts- Bank v. Frankfort. 101 U. S. 510; htirjjh Water H.-at^-r Co. v. Beler 48 L. Fd. 270. Water Heater Co.. 222 Fed Rep. 87— W. A. Oaines * Co. v Rock 950. "rndouhtedly the piirjx.Hr. of Si)rinK Distillinj,' Co., 220 Fed. Rep. authorizing' interro^'atori«'s was to 531, 537; 141 C. C. A. 287. 48f) MATTKKS OF PRACTICE AND LTIDENCK. [§ 211 of tlio trademark;'"'^ Imt it lias Ik'Oji held that the dismissal of such a bill for want oL" proHCcution, through the failure of the plaintiff to pross the case, is not a l)ar U> a hiter action against the successor in business of tlie oriijrinal defendant. "» 88— Browne V. Frecmun, 12 VV. R. 8!)— Cliapiii-Sacks Mf^. Co. v. 305. Hendler Crodmory Co., 231 Fed. Rep. C50, 555. ciiAi''n:ix xv COSTS. §213. Generally. — In rasos of unfair trade the samo rules as to rosts olitaiii as in other actions. The ^'eneral rule is tliat eosts follow the event. A successful plaintiff will l>e awarded costs,' and costs will he refused to one who is unsucees-sful - So costs will 1h- awarded to the suecessful plaintitT. even thoug-h he is denied ilaniaires.'' and apainst an infant,^ or a married woman hiivin^' a si-parate estate.^ § 214. Avoiding costs by submission. — We have had occa- sion t'lM'wIiere to refer to the rule laid down hy Sir George Jessel. that the eonii>lainant in actions of tJie character now under consideration .should not jrive notice to the infringrer before suit;" 1— Coats V. Holbrook, 2 Sandf. C'h. i)8G; Cox, 20; Sel>. 7» ; Pierce v. Frank. 1.^) L. J. Ch. 122; Seh. 81; Rodgers v. Now ill. (i Hare. '.\2'i\ Sob. 82; Burjiess v. Ilately, 20 Beav. 249; iSeb. 1(59; Burgesp v. Hills, 26 Beav. 244; 28 L. J. Ch. 3')6; Seb. 170; Collins Co. v. Walker, 7 \V. R. 222; Sel). 171; .Jurfienson v. Ale.xander, 24 How. I»r. 209; Cox, 298; Seb. 211; Edel- sten V. Edelsten, 1 DeO. J. & S. 18.'); Seb. 21.3; McAndrews v. Bas- Bt'tt, 4 DeG. J. & S. 380; Seb. 234; Chubb V. Griffiths, 35 Beav. 127; Seb. 2.')'); Field v. Lewis, Seton (4th Ed.). 2.37; Seb. 280; Weed v. IVUrnon. 12 Abb. Pr. X. S. 178; Seb. 3K7 ; ( '<>ni|)a.'nie Laferme v. Hendriek. Seb. r)12; Sawyer v. Kel- logg, 9 Fed. Rep. fiOl; Cox, Mail iial, 082; Mcl^un v. Fleming. 9(i U. S. 14.''); 24 L. F-d. 828; Cbup|Hll V. Davidson. 2 K. & .1. 123; .Seb. 130; In re Kulin &. Co'a Trademark. .Vt I.. .1. Cli. 238. Coats "are always awarded to the sueeessful side, unless there has been something in tlie conduct of the party wliieh renders sucii a course ine<]uital)le and unjust to the losing side." Nixon, .1.. in Bun- ker V. Stevens, 20 Fed. Rep. 24.">- 249. 2— Bass V. Dawl)er. 10 L. T. N. S. 020; Seb. 310; Appeal of the Put- nam Nail Co.. Cox. Manual. No. 72."); Weener v. Brayton, l.")2 Mass. 101. a_W,.rd V. Peterson. 13 Abl). Pr. N. S. 178; Seb. 387. 4— Chubb V. Grimths. 3.) Beav. 127: Seb. 2.-)r); Cory v. Gertcken. 2 Madd. 49; Woolf v. Woolf. Al] Sol. .F. 127. .") Nitliolls V. Kimpton, 3 Times I.. K. 071. I'pniann v. Fnr.sfrr. I-. R. 24 Cli. I). 231. 400 491 COSTS. [§2U uiul it luis Ikm'ii held in this couiilry tliiit no (Iciiiaiid or imjIIcc is necessary.^ It is of the gravest importance to the praetitioiicr to iK'ur this nih' in niiiul, whether lie l)e for the i)laiiititT or defeiidant. A failure to ol)serv(' it will oftentimes involve an innocent Jind injui-cd client In the payirieiit of costs which wouhl otherwise fall upon the oilier party; for it is no defense to an assessment of costs a^'ainst the defendant that no demand was made or notice served before suit."* A defendant who makes a full submission will not be nndcte(l in costs. Thus, a label inanufacturer who had iiuioeently made labels upon the order of a customer e\aded costs by pi-omisinir to desist from the marni- facture, ajid ofTerinfr to surrender the litho<,n-apli stone with which the Avork wa.s done." Lord R<^nnilly, in a leadinj? ease in which the defendants were forwarding agents holding as bailee goods bearing a spurious mark, gave the doctrine this succinct expression: "It is his (the defendant's) duty at once to give all the information required, and to undertake that the gooils shall not be removed or dealt with until the spurious l)rand has been removed, and to offer to give all facilities to the person injured for that purpose. If. after that, the person injured files a bill, though be Avill be entitled to all that he a.sl. 2."i3; Romilly in Burgess v. Hills, 2r> Bcav. Wharton v. Thurber, Co.x, Manual, 244; Seh. 170. And to the same f)63; Nunn v. D'Albuquerque, 34 effect see the opinion of the same Beav. 595. Master of the Rolls in Moet v. Cous- §215] lll>|•KI^■^ ON linPKM \RKS. .}!I-J §215. Svbmission to avoid costs must be complete. — It is the lU'ct'ssjii-y i-orri'lativf of tlif nilf stati'tl in tlw priH-cdin^ .*;tx'tioii that n<» .suhiiiission can avail a (Ict'cndant wnh'^s it is full, adt'tjuati' and iT)nipli'tc. Tims a .suhinission. otlicrwisc ^rood, wiLs rt-ndercd inefTct'tive bccau.st' the defendant, did not couple with it an olTer to ]>ay all costs accrued.' • An olVer of submission on conditio!! that each party pay his own costs w jus held incire-etive.'* Further adjudications in support of the "i ncral doctrine of tliid section will be fount! in the note.''* § 216. Costs refused successful defendant. — There arc a nuiiiltcr ol instances wherein a delendant a^Minst whom the plain- tilV ha.s been denial relief has been left to pay his own cost.s. These cases are not always |)redicated upon the defjMidant's absolute fraud, for. even ^vhere fraud could not l>e established, lie may have b(>cn fjuilty of conduct so suspicious as to justify the imposition of his own eost.s."'- Thus where the defendant had dealt in bitters, and n.ssented to suurjicstions that they nii^'ht be passetl ofT on the public as the " Ilostetter's Hitters" of the plain- tiff, the court thought tiu' faets did not warrant an injunction, but that the defendant had invit"78; Sol). 2:i'y; Colo S.h. 7!» ; K.-nncssy v. Dny, .'..'. L. T. V. C'oIc'h Many-use Oil Co., 147 F.-il. N. S. 1(11. Rep. 930. ItJ— Talcott v. Moore, rt Ilun, ].'} — HiitchitiAon V. Hhiml)crjr, -tl lati; Sch. 478; Uds*' v. Loftus, 47 Fed. Hep. 82!l; McAndrews v. Bas- L. .1. Ch. .'>7«; S«>!). 008. Thus, 8€'tt, 4 DfO. .1. & S. 380; Si'b. 2.34; wli.r.' »)uth plaintifT and dcfond- Burj.M'HH V. Hatdy, 2(5 Boav. 240; ant made cij;a.s falncly markod Sch. 100; Bur>:i-KH v. HHIh, 20 Bcav. "Hahaiia," tlic Kn^'liHli court of 244; Seh. 170; CollinH Co. V. Walker, appeal disniiHsed tlie liill witliout 7 W. R. 222; ."^eh. 171; CnatH v. cohIh and ailjudp-d the eoMtft of the Ifollir(H)k, 2 San80 ; Weed a|>peal a^'uiuHt tlie defendant. New- V. V U'THtm, 12 Ahh. I'r. N. .S. 178. man v. I'into, 4 R. V. C. .'.08; .')7 L. 14— Moot V. CouHton. :;:« Heav. T. X. S. .31. r,7H. 17— HoHtett.r V \im Nornt, 02 15— Ton^e V. Ward. 21 L. T. \. F.41. 20 — Dixon v, Fiiwcuh, :\ KM. A :{0— Dcnot' v. nniiul. \V. N. 1881, Kil. r.37. p ;Jl- 27— Dc-vlin v. D.vlin, fiO N. Y. 212. 495 COSTS. [§217 upon tho rntrj' of intorloontory doorccs, and to withhold such order until the entry of final decree upon tlic ina.ster's reiMjrt, we find very respeetuhle authority for the contrary i)ra<'ticc.'" In a ease where, although the injunction is granted, the defen- dant is found to have acted without fraudulent intent, so that the case appears to be "one of honest trade difrei\;nces, " no costs should he allowed to either party. '^^ A party who prevails to a substantial extent upon tht; mer- its may be awardfcl the full costs of the appellate court.''-' 31— The Collins Co. v. Oliver cree." Dick, J., in Avory v. Wil- Ames & Son Corporation, 18 Fed. son, 20 Fed. Rep. 8r)(i-Hr>f). Rep. 501-571. "Courts of equity, 32 — Champion Spark Plug Co. v. having a large discretion in mat- A. R. Moslor & Co., 233 Fed. Rep. ters of costs, frequently give costs 112, 117. in intermediate stages of a cause, 33 — Knahe Bros. Co. v. American without waiting for the final de- IMuno Co., 232 Fed. Rep. 140 (C. C. A. C). APPENDIX 497 CONTENTS OF APPENDIX A. B. C. D. E. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. Tradomark Act of July 8, 1870. Annotated. Label Registration Act of June 18, 1874. Annotated. Patent Office Rules, and Forms relative thereto. Trademark Act of August 14, 1870. Annotated. Trademark Act of March 3, 1881. Annotated. Trademark Act of February 20, 1905. Annotated. Patent Office Rules, and Forms relative thereto. Trademark Statutes of the States and Territories. Annotated. With Forms for Registration Applications. Canadian Trademark and Design Act, with Rules and Forma. Bills of Complaint and Answers. Judicially Approved. Forms of Injunction — Interlocutory and Final Decrees. Classification of Registered Trademarks. International Convention of March 20, 1883. Trademark Provision of an Act incorporating the American National Red Cross. Federal Trade Commission Act; Rules of the Commission. False Stamping. Act of June 13, 1906, Ch. 3289, 34 Stat. L. 260. •109 APPENDIX A. ACT OF CONGRESS OF JULY 8, 1870.^ Section 77.- And be it rurtlier enacted, that any person or firm domiciled in the United States, and any corporation creat- 1 — Altliou},'h this uct is no lonj^- er in forcr, having been held un- constitutiunal, and the Acts of 1881 and 190;') having Imvii since enacted, it is thought adviwaljle to set forth the earlier act, in order that the decisions under it may De under- stood. In Leidersdorf v. Flint (1), 8 Biss, 327, the validity of the Act of 1870 was questioned by the United States Circuit Court, on the ground that the constitution of the United States did not author- ize legislation by congress on the subject of trademarks, except such as had been actually used in com- merce with foreign nations and among the several states, or with the Indian tribes; and in Trade- mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, the act was formally declared by the su- prem'.' court to be on this ground unconstitutional and invalid. But this does not entitle persons hav- ing marks registered under the invalid act to recover back the fees paid by them (Woodman v. United States, 1") Ct. of CI. 541), though they will be credited with such fees when applying for regis- tration under the new act. See Act of 18S1, § (), infra. Nor does the invalidity of the act justify the disregard of injunctions grant- ed under tlie general jurisdiction of the court. United States v. Roche, 1 McCrary, 385. And it has been held that registration of a mark under the invalid act, even witiiout re-registration under the Act of 1881, is sufficient to prevent registration of a similar mark un- der the new Act of 1881. A'jc parte Lyon, Dupuy & Co., 28 Off. Gaz. 191. Since the passing of the Act of 1870, it has been considered in the Patent Office that while, on the one hand, the benefits of registra- tion as trademarks were to be re- served for trademarks, and for trademarks only (e. g., In re Parker, 13 Off. Gaz. 323, registra- tion as a trademark was refused to that which could at most amount to a design ) , so, on the otlier hand, it was only by regis- tering them as trademarks, and not by patenting them as designs {Ex parte King, Comm. Decis. 1870, p. 109; In re Whyte. Id. 1871, p. 304), or registering them as la- bels (In re Godillot, 6 Off. Gaz. 641 ; hi re Simpson & Sons, 10 Id. 333; Kx parte Davids & Co., 16 Id. 94; Ex parte Schumacher & Ettlinger ( 1 ) , 10 /r/. 701 ) , that the benefits of 2— See Act of 1881, sees. 1, 2. 501 f)02 Al'l-KSPIX A. etl by the authority ol' the Unitetl States, or of any st-ate or terri- tor)' thereof, and any i)erson, firm or corporation resident of or loi'ated in any foreign country which l)y treaty or convention af- fonis similar privileges to the citizens of the United State's, and who are entitleti to the exclusive use-' of any lawful trademark, or wJu) intend to adopt and use any tradeioark.'* for exclusive use within the I'nited States, may ohtain protection for such lawful the 8tntuU' ooulil 1k' obtaiiu'd for tradt>niark8. Doscriptivf words not ri'^'istfrahU- a» trademarks were propfrly allowod to hv n-^^iH- t«*n'd as lalK'ls. Hx parte Wavivr- linjr. 1(> III. 74(i; /-'j parte Bri;,'liatn, 20 /(/. SlU; Kx parte Lutz, M Id. 138U; and wo In re Park, 12 /rf. 2, in which it was sought to ropistor as part of a lalK-l a device for which the applieaiit liad previously houf^lit rc;.'ist ration as a trade- mark. In L'nitrd States v. Marble, 22 /il. VMtCi. howev<'r, the Supremr Court of the District of Columbia held that the Commissioner of Pat- ents had no authority to refuse registration to a label merely on till- ground that it might have been registen'd as a tradrmark ; but in the later ease of Hx parte Schu- macher & Ettlinger (2). 22 Id. 1201. the eommissioni-r again re- fused registration as labels to what h«- considered to lie trade- marks; and in Hx parte Moodie, 2H Id. 1271, and Hx parte Wiesel, .Ifi Id. 689, the commissioner re- p«'at<-d this decision, and his pours<' was in the former case up- held on a|>peal by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in Fx parti' Mowlie, 2R Id. 1271. Th*' federal courts have also held that a trademark must be r<-gis- tcred as such, nn«l not ••opy righted as u lalxl. SchumaclH-r & Ett- linger V. \\ Ograni, ;t"i l\'tl. Kep. 210. It is for the commissioner to tlecide whether what is presented to him is a trademark or label. Hx parte Moodie. 2S OfT. Cas. 1271. :{— In MeKlwee v. Hlackwell, 15 Oir. (;az. U5S, it was held that al- though where registration had been wrongfully granted to one, it might subsequently be properly granted to another who was really entitled to the exclusive use, yet it would not be granted to another who was not entitled to the ex- (•lusive use, even though he might be entitled to use the mark to some extent. And see Wright v. Simpson, 15 Id. 908; also Sorg v. Wc'l.sh, Ifi Id. 910. as to admissions of right in another; and Yale Cigar Manufacturing Co. v. Yale, :!(> Id. lis:i. Cnder the Act of IS81 registration will be refused where it appears that the applicant is only one of s<'verul wlio have a right to use the mark. Fx parte Langdon. 01 OfT. Ga/. 280. 4 — I'nder tln'se words a new tradi-mark might be registered prior to any actual use. In re Roths- child. 7 (Xr. flaz. 220; and we Hoosier Drill Co. v. Ingels, 14 Id. 785. This is not the case under the Act of 1881. Si-e sih-s. 1 and 2, notes. an•'• Sixth. The compliance with such regulations as may be pre- scribed by the Commissioner of Patents. "' Seventh. Tin- iiliiig of a declaration,'^ under the oath of the person or of some member of the (inn or oflficer of the corporation, to the etTect that the party daimiufj protection for the trademark has the right to the u.se of the same, and that no other person, firm or corporation has the right to .such use, either in the identical fonn, or having such near resemblance thereto as mig'ht be caleu- 14 — Sec Kx parte Consolidated Fruit Jar Co., IC OlT. Gaz. 079. If) — A fee paid can only l>e re- had registered a trademark for "paints" was not entitled to re- strain tlie usi- of the mark on white lead by another firm which had used the mark on tliat variety of paint before the plaintiffs had used or covered when it was paid by actual mistake: c. g., a payment in excess, or one not required by law registered tlieir mark; and in the When, therefore, an application has former case it was held that the registration iM-iiig l)nd as to white lead was bad in toto, though but for that it might have be<'n good. 11 — The trademark must be suf- ficiently described for it to be pos- sible to clearly distinguish between the essential and non-essential ele- ments. In n \'<.lta Uelt Co., 8 Off. Gaz. 144. 12 — The favsimilv limits the ver- bal de8cripti«>n of the mark. Duke V. Grwn, 10 Off. Gaz. 1094. 13 — The previous uwr of the ap- plicants or their derivative title must be Htatefl. A'x />nr/r Consolidat- ed Fruit .Jar Co.. HI Off. Gaz. (579. Only one example of the mode of use will 1m- a — See § 81, infra, and note thereto. 17 — As to the necessity for the filing of this d«'claration, and for the production of sufficient evidence of it, on a trial for infringement, m-e Smith v. Reynolds (1), 10 Ulatchf. Sf), where an injunction was refused on the ground of the deflci- ency of bUcL cvidcucc. ACT OF CONGRESS OF JULY 8, 1870. 505 lated to deceive,'" and that the description juid facsimiles pre- sented for record arc tnif i-oiiics of llir tiii ment. In re Vidvard & Sheehan. S Off. Gaz. 658. In an interference, Oflf. Gaz. 143. the applicant was "granted repistra- 19 — See Act of 1881, sees. 5, 7, tion as apainst a prior restan- tially the same description, properties and (pialitu's as those re- ferred to in the registration.-- shall he lialile to an a<'tioii on tl>e ease for ilania^es for sweh unlawful us^^- of sueh tradenuirk at the suit of the owner thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction in the United States, and the party af the actin;; commissionjT was upheld in Simpson v. \\'ri;:lit ('2(. IT) OfT. C.a/.. 2'.y.i. 25 — The OfT. Gaz. 04. And it has heen held that the same is the case with the Freemasons' h(juare and compass. He Tcdle. 2 /il. 41"); and the word "Masonic," Hjt parte Smith (3), Irt /./. 704. In re Tliomas, 14 /(/. 821, tiie Freemasons' symhols were al- lowed to he rejjistered in comhina- tion, and In re Tolle, supra, was overruled. In /,'x parte King (2), 4f> /(/. 110, tlie decision In re Thomas, 14 Id. 821, was followed, and the desi;:n of tlie l)ad;,'e adopt- ed hy the (!rand Army of the Re- puhlic was allowed to l>c registeri*d as a trademark for writing paper liy a person who had no connection with that stK'iety, and it was said that, that society not having used tlu-ir hadge as a mark on writing paper, they would he infringing llie ji|)|»licant's rights if they wore til hegiii to do HO. The wordn "Knigiits of Lalwr" were refused registration as a mark for whisky • in this ground and hecanso decep- tive. Kx parte Bloch A Co., 40 OfT. C»a/.. 443. A word which has he- ACT OV CONGRESS OF JIII.Y 8, 1870, 507 oomo common, r. i dcscriptivtMU'SH: "Beeswax oil," In re Iluutliaway (1), Comm. Dccis. 1871, 97; h. c (2), III. 'iS4; "Razor Sti'cl," In rr Robi-rts (4 1. Iipes. In re Rader & Co., Comm. Decis. 1878, G7; "Crouj) Tincture," In re Roach, 10 OfT. C.az. :V.l.\; "C"rack-proof ' In- dia rulilxr. In re (ioody^'ar Rubber Co., 11 Id. 1062; "Evaporated" ar- ticles of food, Kx parte Alden, 1') Id. 389; "Standard A" cigars, Kx parte Cohn (1), 10 Id. 080; "Dru<,'- jnjists' Sundries," A'jt parte Cohn (2), 10 /(/. 680; "Safety" powder, Rx parte Safety Powder Co., 16 Id. 136; "Medicated Prunes," Ex parte Smith (2), 16 7rf. 679; "Satin Pol- ish," shoe polisli. In re Brigham, Comm. Decis. 1881, 38; "Swing" scythe sockets. Ex parte Tliomp- son, Derby & Co., 16 OIT. Gaz. 137 ; "Granulated Dirt KiHer" soap. Ex parte Waeferling, 16 Id. 764; "Famous," merchandise generally, In re Brand Stove Co.. 62 Off. Gaz. r>S8; and "Splendid" flour. Ex parte Stokes. 64 Off. Gaz. 437. And the same has been the case with respeet to the figure of a fish for fisliing lines. In re Pratt & Farmer, 10 III. 866; and the representation of a twig with three leaves and a plu n, for prunes, Ex parte Smith (2), 16 Id. 679; and Beo PophaiD V. Wileox, 06 N. Y. 69. On thft other liand, "Ibi' Blanchard Churn," In re PorU-r Blaiu-hard's Sons, Comm. Decis. 1871, 97; "Heaverine" boots and slioes, In re I'rancis & .Malion, Id. 283; and "i)r. Lijlienthal's Kssi-ntiu Antiph- tliisiea," In re Rohland, 10 Off. Gaz. 980, have been admitted to regis- tration as being non-descriptive. In a series of cases registration bas been refused on the ground that the term claimed, if properly apj>licable to the goods with re- sjiect to which it was used, was de- scriptive, but if not, was deceptive: r. f/., "Bromo-Quinine," In re Grove 07 Off. Gaz. 1447; "American Sar- dines," In re American Sardine Co., 3 Id. 495; "Egg Macaroni," In re Bole Bros., 12 Id. 939; "Cachemire Milauo," In re Warburg & Co., 13 Id. 44; "French Paints," Ex parte Marsching & Co., 1.") Id. 294; "Lon- don" animal foods. Ex parte Knapp, 10 Id. 318; but see In re Green. 8 Id. 729, where registration was granted to "German Syrup." On the latter ground of decepti' ,- ness, the word "patent" can not be registered as a part of a mark for an article made under an expired ])atent. In re Richardson, 3 Id. 120. A geographical name is not usual- ly registrable. Armistead v. Black- well, 1 Id. 003, "Durham" tobacco; In re Tolle, 2 /(/. 41.-). "Cherry Street Mills," and ":Market Street Mills;" Ex parte Knapp, 16 Id. 318. "Tvondon" animal foods; Ex parte Marsching & Co., 15 Id. 294. "French Paints;" Ex parte Far- nuni & Co.. IS Id. 412. "Lancaster" goods. But such a name may be registered when arl)itrarily select- ed. In re Cornwall (2), 12 Id. 312, 50S ArrKNDlX A. "Ihjhiin" Ronp. Similnrly, numor- hIh may Ik- n'pi«tori>. v. An- thony, i:. U. I. :J.1S. Hut not otlitr- wiw. In rv Ka;:lf IVnoil to., l(t Off. liaz. *.)1. It has iMt-n h«-ld that a IH-culiarity in the form of a barrel is not re^'ititrahle as a trademark, MiKirman v. Ilo^re, 2 Sawv. 7S; nor a reprewntation of bucIi barn-l when applied to the yoods eon- tained in it, Kx parte llalliday Hros., 1(J Ofl". Gaz. ."»00; nor is a special kind of barrel-hoop re<:i8tra- ble. In rr Kane & Co., 9 Id. 10.".. But see Cook v. Starkweather, 13 Abb. Pr. N. S. 302. A special col- lar Ik)X was lield not to constitute a trademark, Carrinjjton v. Libhy, 14 Blatchf. 128; and a sampler pattern was refus«'d rejiistration, In re Parker, 13 Off. Gaz. 323; and a strip of tobacco intended to be wrapped around the mouthpiece of «i;:arette8, on the ground that it was intended to serve purposes of convenience rather than of identifi- • ■ation. In rr Gordon, 12 /(/. r>17; and the use of a tin tag or ticket on the goods, irrespective of shape and design, is no trademark, Loril- lard V. Pride, 28 Fed. Hep. 434; though a tin tag of special shape, si/e and cohir may be. Lorillard v. Wiglit. ir. F.d. Hep. 383. Til. re is no trademark in the shape of a plug of tobacco, Liggett & Myi-rs Tobacco Co. V. n\TneH, 20 Fed. Rep. 883; or <»f a box. Sawyer v. Horn, 4 Hughes. 230: Ball v. Siegel. 11(1 111. 137: or of sticks of chewing gum Adams v. Heim-l, 31 Fed. Hep. 270; or of the frame of a Bcwing machine originally made under a patent, Wilcox & Giblm Sewing Machine Co. v. Gibbons* Frame, 21 Blatchf. 431; Brill v. ."dinger Manufacturing Co., 41 Ohio St. 127; n«>r in a manner of ar- ranging in lM>.\es cakes of s<)ap wrapped in dilferently colored pa- ju-r wrappt-rs, Davis v. Davis, 27 Fed. Hep. 400; nor in a nom dc plume, Clemens v. Belford, 11 Biss. 4.")!). But registration has been granted to a p«'culiarly shaped stick intended to l»e so placed in a roll of carpet as to show an oc- tagoiuil ring at eaeli end. L<)W«'I1 Manufacturing Co. v. Larntnl, Fed. Cas. No. 8570. Hegistration can not be granted to minor and non- essential features in a compound mark. I.'x parte Coats, H! Off. Gaz. .■|44. Occasionally a mark has bi-en allowed to be registered in alter- luitive forms, e. g., "The Star Sliirt," the same words with the figure of a star, and "The * Shirt," Morrison v. Cas«', 9 Blatchf. 548; the figure of a lion, the word "Lion," or both, In re Weaver. 10 Off. Gaz. 1 ; and see In re Park, 12 /(/. 2; In rr Thomas, 14 Id. 821; Ex parte Peper, 10 Id. 078. A bad trade- mark does not become a good one by the addition of unobjectionable elements. In re Blakeslee & Co.. Comm. Decis. 1871, 284, "Cundu- rango Ointment Co.;" In re Dick &. Co. Off. Gaz. .".38. "D. D. & Co. tasteless" drugs; In rr Hader 4 Co.. 13 Id. r.OO. "Iron Stone" in an oval Iwrder. But it appears to be possi- lile for two marks, which separate- Iv are not good trademarks, to form one in combination. Ft parte Davids & Co.. 10 Id. 04. A trade- mark can not be registered for the purj)os<' of being used l»y all the mcmbtrtt uf uu asbociation on ACT OF CONGRESS OF JULY 8, 1870. 509 poration only,^'' imaccompanie Co. of New York," In re India Rubber Comb Co., 8 Off. Gaz. 905; "The Itubber Clothing Co." In re Rul)ber Clothing Co., Kl Id. 111. Sr.- In rr Dole Bros., 12 Id. 939; In re Con- solidated Fruit Jar Co., 14 Id. 3fi9; Kx parte Consolidated Fruit Jnr Co., IG Id. 079. Tliis saving proviso is, however, «»niittcd from tlie Act of 1881, HO that tlie prohibition as to names, etc., is universal. See Act of 1881, sec. 3, and Ex parte Fair- child, 21 Off. fJaz. 789, in which rase registration was refused to a name wliich liad Iteen used as a trad'mark for twenty years, and liad been regisUTed under the Act of 1870. 29— See Act of IHHl, sees, 3, 4. 30— See Act of 1881, sec. 12. 31 — It was fonueilv decided tliat the authority given to the commis- sioner by section 81 to make regu- lations empowered him to declare an interference in a trademark case, for tlie purpose of deciding a (|ue8tion of title to the trademark, on the analogy of the practice in patent cases. Lant/. Bros. & Co. v. Schultz Si Co.. 9 Off. Oa/.. 791; Duke v. Oreen. U> Id. 1094. And thougli it was thought in Swift v. Peters, 11 Id. 1110, that the ques- tion wlietlicr n registered propri- etor of a mark was entitled to the exclusive use of it against an ox- )i!»rtiiiT wjis a question for a court of law, and not for the office, it was held in Tloosier Drill Co. v. Iii^'fls, 14 /(/. 78."), that, in investi- gating the title of the mark, all matters relating to the ownership should be gone into; and in llan- ford V. Wescott. 10 Id. 1181, Fed. Cas. No. 0022, it was held that a decision of the examiner of inter- ferences, unappealed from, was conclusive as (o the right to a mark; and see .Tosselyn v. Swe/.ey \ Dart, If) Off. Oa/.. 702, as to re- opening tlie evidence taken on an ACT OF CONGRESS OF .JI'LY 8, 1870. 511 prescribe lonns lof the t i-.iiislVr ol' tln' y\f^\\i to use such trade- marks, conrormiiig as nearly as practicable to the requirenicnts of the hiw respoctiii^r the transfer and transmission of copyrif^lit.s. Skction 82.''- And be it further enacted, that any [jerson who shall procure the registry of any trademark, or of himself as the owner thereof, or an entry respecting? a trademark, in the Patent Office under tliis act, by makinj:^ any false or fraudulent repre- sentations or declaration verl)ally or in writing, or])y any fraudu- lent means, shall be liable to pay damages in consequence of any such registry or entry to the person injured thereby, to be recov- ered in an action on llie case in any court of competent jurisdic- tion w itbin the United States. Section S:^'''* And lie it further enacted, that nothing in this act shall prevent, lessen, impeach or avoid, any remedy at law or in equity which any party aggrieved hy any wrongful use of any trademark might have had if this act had not been passed.^"* Section 84.''^ And be it further enacted, that no action shall be maintained under the provisions of this act by any person claim- ing the exclusive right to any trademark which is used or claimed interforencc, and Simpson v. Wri{,'lit (1). 1.') /(/. 248, and s. c. (2), 1.") /(L 2!);{. as to rchcarinj.' an intcrforonce. After the case of United States V. StefTons, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. Ed. 5.-)n, it was held that tlie Pat- ent OflTioe lias no lonjrcr any author- ity to decide questions of disputed titles to trademarks, or to declare interferences in such cases. Braiin & Co. V. BlackAvell, 19 Off. Gaz. 481; and see Ex parte Strasburger & Co., 20 /(/. 1.1.5, and .Tacohy & Co. V. Lopez & Co., 23 Id. .342. And in Yale Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Yale, .30 Id. 1183, it was decided that a declara- tion of interference is authorized by section 3 of the Act of 1881. In such cases the only duty of the office is to decide whether th(> op- ponent has or has not a better title than the applicant, not to decide any further question. Ibid. If, on an iMtcrfcrciicc hctwcen an appli- cant and a registered owner with respect to the same mark, the right to registration is adjudged to the applicant, notwithstanding the o])])osition of the registered owner, the H'sult is, while strictly giving tlic ap])lioaiit merely the right to register, practically to displace the registered owner, though his mark is not removed from the register. Ihid. For the present rule as to interferences see note 7 to sec. 3 of the Act of 1881 ; and see sec. 7, Act of lOOfi. 32— See Act of 1881, sec. 0. 33— S(>e Act of 1881, sec. 10. 34 — See Osgood v. Kockwood, 11 Blatchf. 310; Fed. Cas. No. 10605; United States v. Roche, 1 McCreary, 38.5; Fed. Cas. No. 10180. 35 — See Act of 1881, sec. 8. 512 APPENDIX A. in aj33' unlawful business or upon any article wliich is injurious in itself, or upon any trademark wliich has been fraudulently ob- tained, or whii'li has Uvvn lornu'd aiul used witii the di'sitjn of de- ceiving the public in the purchase or use of ;my article of iiwr- eJiandise.''" 30 — It ft(>om« thnt this net pro- nU-ad v. lilackwoU, 1 Off. (la/.. 603 vidtMi no nu-niiH for nniovin^' from McKhvoo v. Ulackwi-U, 15 Id. 658 r<';:istrHtion a mark which was Wri^'ht v. Sinii>son. l.'i Id. 968 wron^'fiilly rojiisttrod, r. p., a mark Yah- Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Yale, 30 Id which did not contain any of the 1183. o»»cntial j)articular8. See Armi- APPENDIX B LABEL ACT OF JUNE 18, 1874. (18 Statutes at l.-AVin-. 7S.) An act to aun'iul the law relating,' to patcntn, trademarks and copyriglits. Section 3. That in tho construction oi' this act the words "en- graving," "cut" and "jjrint" shall ])e applied only to pictorial illu.strations or works connected with the fine arts, and no prints or labels designetl to be used lor any other articles of manufacture shall be entered under the copyright law, but may be registered in the Patent Office. And the Comanissioner of Patents is hereby charged with the supervision and control of the entry or registry of such prints or lal)cls, in conformity witli the regulations pro- vided by law as to copyright of prints, exc*ej)t that there shall be paid for recording the title of any print or label not a trademark, six dollars, which shall cover the expense of furnishing a copy of the record under the seal of the Commissioner of Patents, to the party entering the same.^ 1 — This law can be sustained only under the constitutional del- egation of authority to congress to legislate upon copj'righta. The provision quoted has refer- ence only to such writings as are the result of intellectual labor and are founded in tlie creative powers of the mind. "It does not have any reference to labels which simply designate or describe the articles to which they are attached, and which have no value separated from the articles, and no possible influence upon science or the useful arts." Mr. Justice Field in Higgins v. KeuflFel, 140 U. S. 428, 35 L. Ed. 470. No action at law or in equity can be maintained for the in- fringement of a label so registered (copyrighted) unless the provision of the copyright law in regard to the notice has been complied with, 1. c, "by inscribing upon some vis- il)le portion tliereof, or of the sub- stance on which the same shall be mounted, the following words, viz. : 'Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year , by A. B., in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington;' or (at the option of the registrants the word 'Copyright,' together with the year the copyright Avas entered, and the name of the party by 513 514 ArrtLNPix n. whom it wft« taken out;" tliu«, ••l'opyrij:ht. 18 -.. by A. li." Hifj- pinB V. K.'ulTi'l, 140 U. S. 42S, Ilf) L. Etl. 470. It 18 manifi'st that undtT thin di'- cision thf act atTonlH no proU*cti<>n to lalK>l8, and n'j;i»trntion undi-r it i« idh*. Lul)y. Patent OtWco Prac- tici', p. 121. Hut until thi-n- in a dtfinion dtt'larin;; tiu' law uncon- htitutional tho Patrnt OHioc is opi'n for this cla»8 of n'j;iHtrati<>n. Kx parte U. J. Hoinz Co., (.2 OfT. C.a/.. 1004. It is hold, however, that a lalu'l will not bo admittod to roj;- i!*try unloss it has tho same doj^roo uf artistic oxcollcnco as would on- tith' it to c<>pyri;;iit in the oflicc of tlio Lilirarian of ("(Hif^roHS. /.'j- parte Palmer, r,H OfT. CJaz. 38:5. And labels containing or con8istin<; of matter constitutinj; trademarks will not be rej^'istored until such trademark matter has boon rojiis- tered as trademark. Kx parte Dia- mond Laboratory Co., 44 MSS. Doc. HI; Kx parte Ruckstuhl, ;')(> OlT. Gaz. 927. A label boarinjj the name and address of the owner, the name of the article to whicli it is applied, with the price and directions for use, exhibitin<; no attempt at artistic or literary merit, will not be roRistored. Kx parte Eldred;,'e Co., of) Off. Caz. 1278. The same ruling has been made as to a label purely descrip- tive of the articles to which it is int^-nded to be applied. Kx parte C. C. Hainlino & Co., r>8 OfT. Oaz. 047. PrintH and InhriN defined. — "Rej;- iHt<*red labels or prints and tra< of the law and deciHionH of the rourtH an a|>plieable only to some kind of merrhandi84-: labels, as jriving the names of the manufac- turers, j)laoe of manufacture, na- ture ur (juality of j;ootis, directions for use, and tlie like.' Doolittle, Assistant Commissioner, in Ex parte Parker, 13 Off. Oaz. 323. Long prior to the decision of Iliggins V. Keuffel, 140 U. S. 428, 3.'» L. Kd. 470 (wHprai. .Judge lUatcli- ford had lield tluit tliis section was |)urely II copyrigiited act, and tluit under the general copyrigiit n-gula- tion of congress ( 8«'c. 4!)r>0, R. S, ) no person could claim jiroti-ction for a lalK'l so registered unless "be- fore publication" he had deposited a printed copy of the title of the article in respect of wliich the e(i[)yriglit was claimed, in the Pat- • ■nt Oflice. Marsh v. Warren, 14 lUatdif. 2t;;{; 14 Off. (!az. 078; Fed. (as. No. ni21; 10 Fed. Caa 821. It has been held that the mere fact that words or designs which appear upon the label might be used as trademarks does not pre- vent registration under this act. F.x parte Orcutt & Son, 8 Off. Gaz. 270 : and in another early case the ajiplicant's label was admitted to registry, but certain "arbitrary words" and "fanciful figures" were first refused or stricken out of the label, and the commissioner sug- gested tliat they sliould bo regis- tered as trademarks. F.x parte W. Simj.son & Sons, 10 Off. Gaz. 334. Hut as indicated in the first por- tion of this note, the prevailing doctrine was that "the presence in a laliel of matter registrable as a trademark excludes the whole from registration." Kx parte Thad- deus Davids A Co., 10 Off. Gaz. !H. It has been held by the Su- jinine Court of the District of Co- lumbia, however, that tho Commis- hioner of Pat<'nts has no discre- tion to determine whether a par- LABEL ACT OK .JINK IH, 1874. 515 ticiilar lalifl pliould lio clnHHcd ns a tnulcmark or hh only u lul>cl. That liin diiticH uh rt'HpcctH tliiH act arc jiurdy ministi-rial, and mandaniiiH will lie to comiirl liini to ro^^isttT any lalud |)ri)iirrly prc- sonted for rt'(,MHtratioii. United Stati'8 ex rcl. Wilcox & (Jilil)H Sew- ing Macliint' Co. v. Mari)l«', 1 Mackey, 284; 22 OlF. Ca/,. VM\i\; United States ex rel. Schumacher V. Marhle, li Mackey, 32. And it is now settled that a j)riiit will not he refused n-fristratioii "even thoufjh it may contain matter ca- pahle of sequestration as a trade- mark, not in fact registered as a trademark." Greeley, Commis- sioner, in Ex parte United States Playing Card Co., 82 OfT. Caz. 1200, 1210. In regard to this act, the Pat- ent Ollice has adopted the follow- ing rule: "These sections of stat- utes (referring to sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act of June 18, 1874) are construed as authorizing the reg- istry of 'prints' and 'labels.' A label is a device or representation not borne by an article of manu- facture or vendible commodity. A print is a device or representation not borne by an article of manu- facture or vendible commodity, but in some fashion pertaining there- to — such, for instance, as a pic- torial advertisement thereof. A label can not be registeri'd if it bear a device capable of registra- tion as a trademark, until after such device is registered as a trademark. Both labels and prints, in order to be entitled to registry, must be intellectual productions in the degree required by the copy- right law." The restriction contained in this rule as to the registration of la- l)rls containing a device capable of He<|ueHtration as a trademark does not apply to a print contain- ing Hueh a device, and it will Im» Hilmilted to registration, even though it may contain a device so r to lH>ttl«'«, boxoH, and paokap-s t'onta^iin^' tln-iii. to iiuiicatf the coiitciitH «>f tin- puckaj;i'. tlu- iiamr of tlu" nmnufarturiT. or tlif plaoi- of manufacture, the f j;oo«ls, directions for us<', etc. "By tlie words 'articles of man- ufacture' (to which such print or label is applicahle by this act) is meant all vendible commodities l>rove defined. *'To entitle the proprietor of any such print or label to rej,Mster the same in the Patent Ollice, the ap- plication for the refristration tliere- of must be made to the Connnis- sioner of Patents, and said appli- cation should be 8i{,'ned by the j)roprietor or his agent. There must also be filed in the Patent Oflice five copies of the print or label one of which, wlien the print or label is rejiistered, shall lie cer- tified under tlie seal of tlie Commis- sioner of Patents and returned to the proprietor. "The certificate of such re},'istra- tion will continue in force for twenty-ei}.dit years. "The certificate may b«' contin- ued for a further term of fourteen years upon filing a second a|)pli- rati>r label is $(t. to be paid in the siinii' iiiaiiinT iiH fees for trade- marks. 'file attention *»f jutsoiis con- templating the n-gistry of a print or lal>el in tlie Pat<'nt Odice is calh'd to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in liiggins v. KeulFel, ."..") (). C. li;{!t; 140 U. S. 428; to the decision of the United States Circuit Court in Marsh ct al. V. Warren rt al., 14 O. G. U78, and to the decisions of the Commis- sioner of Patents in Ex parte United States Playing Card Co., 8'2 O. (J. 12(M>, and Kx parte Mahn, 82 O. 0. 1210." The simulation of currency being forbidden by sec. r)4;{0 R. S. U. S. a label containing simulations of cur- rency or coins will not be registered. /•;.r parte Hall, 08 OlT. Gaz. 23t)« ; and so of labels containing the flag of the United States, Ibid, or the shields of the United States and and Cuba. Kx parte R. Steinecke Co., 122 OfT. Ga/. 3011. If not an artistic production the label will not be registered, and the fee will be returned. Ex parte Sides, 12:} OfT. Gaz. 1CG.3. A fan- ciful design to be placed upon cards and letterheads is not registrable as a print under this act. "The ar- ticle of manufacture referred to in till- statute must lie sejiarate and independent of the print itself." Greeley, Act. Com., in Ex parte Bariiliart Hros. & Sjiindler, 87 Off. Gaz. 2118. 2110. To be registrable, tlie label must identify the article on which it is used. Ex parte Malm. 82 Off. Gaz. 1210; Ex parte American Weavers' Assn., !I4 Off. Gaz. .'.SO; Ex parte Hall, 08 Off. Gaz. 2:J0G, LAbtL ACT OF jyjtiL lb, lb74. 517 RULES COVERXTNO THE REOrSTRATTOX OF PRINTS AND I.ABELS I\ THE PATENT OFFICE. Ijnitkd States Patent Office, Washington, I). ('., Au^ist 15, 1913. The following rules, designed to be in striet accordance with the provisions of the copyright law, for the registration of prints and labels, are published for gratuitous distribution. Applicants for registration and their attorneys are advised tliat their business will be facilitated by the observance of the forms on pages 13 to 15. Thomas Ev^ing, dammisaioner of Patents. CORRESPONDENCE. 1. All business with the office should be transacted in writing. Unless by the consent of all parties, the action of the office will be based exclusively on the written record. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 2. Applicants and attorneys will be required to conduct their business with the office -^vith decorum and courtesy. Papers pre- sented in violation of this requirement will be returned. But all such papers will first be submitted to the eommiissioner. and only returned ))y his direct order. 3. All letters should be addressed to "The Commissioner of Patents." and all remittances by postal order, certified cheek, or draft should l)e to his order. 4. A separate letter should in every case be written in relation to each distinct suli.ject of inquiry or application. Com-plaints against the examiner, assignments for record, fees, and orders for copies or abstracts must be sent to the office in separate letters. o. Letters relatijig to pending applications should refer to the name of the applicant and date of filing. Letters relating to .■)1S APPKNItlX H. rt'^'istero' to the proper i-oiuluct of Inisincss before the ofliee. KXAMINATION OI' AIM'LICATIOXS. •Jl. The so-calleil print and label section of the eopyright stat- ute, approved June 18, 1874, is construed to provide for the regis- tration of any print or label witbout examination as to its nov- elty. 2'2. All applications for registration are considered in the first instance by the examiner. "Whenever, on examination of an appli- cation, registration is refused for any reason Avhatever, the appli- cant will be notified thereof. The rejisons for such rejection will be stated, and such information will he given as may be u.seful in aiding the applicant to judge of the propriety of further prosecuting his application. 23. The examination of an application and the action thereon will be directed throughout to the merits, but in each letter the examiner shall .state or refer to all his objections. AMENDMENTS. 2i. The application may be amended to correct iiifornnalities or to avoid objections made 'oy the office, or for other reasons arising in the course of examination, and if the copies of the prints or labels furnished are for any reason not registrable under the copyright law, the applicant may substitute copies which conform to the requirements of said law. 2'). In every amendment the exact Avord or wonb to he stricken out or inserted mnst be specified, and the precise point indicated where the erasure or insertion is to bo made. All such amend- ments must Ite on sheets of paper separate from the papers pre- viously filed and written on but one side of the paper. 2fi. After allowance, the examiner will exercise jurisplieations. ASSIGNMENTS. 35. Prints and labeis are a.ssipnable in law by an instrument in writing sijrned by the pr(>])rietor. This should .state tiie names of the assijjrnee and assignor, the title of the print or ial^el assigned, the date of filing the application, or, if registered, the date and number of the cei-titicate. auti sliould he dated. COI'n;s AM) inilMCATIONS. 36. After a print or label has been registered, eoi)ies thereof may be furnished, wlien authorized by the coniniissioner, upon the payment of the fee. 37. The OfTieial (lazette of the Patent Office will contain a list of all the prints and labels registered, with the name and address of the registrant in each case, the title of the print or label, and a statement of the particular goods to which it is to be applied, together with the date of filing the aj^plication. FEES. .SS. On filinj: an aiiplicatioii for n-;,Mstrati(>ii of a ])riiit or label.. .. .$6.00 For manuscript copies of records, for every 100 words or frac- tion then'of 1*^ If certified, for tlie certificate, additional '2."> For reeordin;.' every asaijinment, power of attorney, or otiier paper, of :{00 words or under 1 00 Of over 'MtO and under 1.000 words '2 00 For eacli additional 1,000 wt)rds or fraction thereof 1 00 For abstracts of title: For the search, on<' hour tir less, and certificate 1 00 Eaeli additional hour or fraction thereof SO For each lirief from the di;.'<'st of assignments, of 200 words or less '-" Each additional 100 words or fraction thereof 10 For HCHrcliin^' tiths or records, one lioiir or less ■'>•• ■Eacli additional linnr or fraction thereof rjO For sint'le printi-d copy, when autliori/.<'d by the commissioner .0."» If certified, for the jrrant, additional •'»0 For the certificate '-•' i.AnKi. ACT OK .iiiNK 18, 1874. rys.i 39. Tlio fee for i-c^iislralioii of ,i in'int or lalid is to he paid to tlic ('oniiiiissioiici- of I'atciils, (,r to the 'rrcusiiccr or any ot" tlit; a-ssistant treasurers of the United States, or to any of the depos- itaries, national l)anks, or receivers of public money desi{^nated by the Secretary of the 'J'reasiiry for that piirpf)se, wlio shall t^ive the dejxKsitoi* a recei{)t or certilieate of deposit tlierefor, which shall be transmitted to the Patent Office. When this can not bo done without inconvenience the money may be remitted by mail, and in every such case the letter should state the exact amount inclosed. All money orders and checks should be made payable to the "Commissioner of l*atents." 40. All money sent by mail, either to or from the Patent Office, will be at the risk of the sender. All payments to the office miLst be made in specie, Treasury notes, national bank notes, certified checks, or money orders. HEP.AYMENT OF MONEY. 41. Upon refusal of the commissioner to register the print or label, and on application by the applicant, or his duly authorized agent, the fee may be returned. NOTICE OK COPYRTGHT. 42. Tt is necessary, in order to maintain an action for infringe- ment of a copyright, that the claim of copyright be printed on each copy of the article protected. The wording of the notice is determined by the copyright statute, section 18. Approved March 13, 1912. Samuel Adams, Acting Secretary. 524 APPENDIX U. FORMS FORM<; von APIM.ICATIOX Koli KKc I ISTRATION OF I'm. NTS. ( 1 I K()l{ A\ IM)1\ 11)1 AL, To the Cuimninniunvr of Patents: Tlie undiTsijjni'd, , [insert namr of appliratit \ a , \in.irrt slatimrnt of applicant's citizenship, or of trhat ruler he is a subject] r»'nidinj,' at , [insert applicant's residence, domicile or location] and doinj; Imsiness at , [insert applicant's place of doing business] luTchy applies as , [state whether as author or proprietor ; and if as proprietor, state also the citizenship of the author {or of ichat ruler he is a subject) from ichom title is derived] for registration of tin- print shown in the accompanying copies, 10 of which are fumiwlied. The print was first puldished, with Notice of Copyright theniui. on : [insert date of publication] its title is , [insert title of print, irhich must appear on the copies furnished] and it is used for advertising purposes for ]state goods irhich print is used to ad- vertise]. (.Signature of applicant I , Author (or Proprietor). (2) FOR A FIRM. To the Commissioner of Patmts: The undersigned, , ]insert name of applicant] a plrin, domiciled in , [insert applicant's residence, domicile, or location] and doing Itusiness at , [insert applicant's place of doing business] herei>y RpplieH as proprietor, the author • from wiiom title is derived being a citizen of (or subject of ) , [state citizenship of the author (or of what ruler he is a subject)] for registration of llie print shown in llie accom- panying copies, 10 of which are furnished. The print was first i)ul>lislitil, with Notice of Copyright thereon, on ; [insert date of publication] its title is . [insert title of print, which must appear on the copies furnished] jiiul it is used for advertising purposes for [state goods uhich print is used to ad- vertise]. (Signature of ap|>Ii(iint) , I'roprictor. ny . A Member of the Firtn» LAUKL ACT OK .JUNE IH, 1874. 525 <:t| FOR A CUUJ'(»ltA'll()\. To the CommisHionrr of I'dtiiils: Tlic iiri(llish)'(l, witli NOticr of Copyrif^lit th undiTsi^'nod, , \give nnmrs of e.reeutors or administrators] residing at , [gii^e residence of executors or administrators'] , ] state whether executors or administrators] of tin- cHtatc of , [insert name of deceased author or proprietor] deceased, late of , {insert statement of deceased author's or proprietor's citizenship, or of what ruli r lie ira.'i n subject] and a resident of , [insert late resi- dence of dervased author or proprietor] herehy apply as proprietors for the registration of tlic label shown in tiie accompanying copies, 10 of which are furnished, and of wiiicii said [insert name of deceased author or proprietor'] deceased, was the [state ichether deceased was author or proprietor ; and, if proprietor, state also the citizenship of the author {or of what ruler he )ras a subject) from whom title was derived] . The label was first pul)lished, with Notice of Copyright thereon, on ; [insert date of publication] its title is , [insert title of label, irhich must appear on the copies furtiished] and it is used on [state goods on which the label is used]. Executors {or Administrators) of the Estate of , [insert name of deceased author or proprietor] Deceased. * \^^len application is filed hy an executor or administrator, a copy of the letters testamentary or of administration certified by the clerk of the court granting such letters must accompany the application. APPENDIX C. PENAL ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1876. ( I'.t SliitJit.'s at I.ar;.'.-, 141.) lie it omctcd by the Smatc mid House of Representatives of the United States of America i)i Congress assembled: Section 1. That ♦■very person who shall, with iiiti'ut to de- fraud, deal in or sell, or ktH'p or otTer for sale, or cause or pro- cure the sale of, any gomlw of sulustantially the same tle.se riptive ])roperties as tho.se referred to in the registration of any trade- nuirk pursuant to the statutes of the United States, to whieh, or to the package in ■which the saane are put up, is fraudulently aflRxetl said trademark, or any colorable imitation thereof, calcu- lated to deceive the public, knowing the .same to be counterfeit, or not the genuine goods referred to in siiid registration, shall, on conviction thereof, be puni.shed by a fine not exceeding one thoiLsiind dollars, or imprisonment not more than two years, or l)oth such fine and imi)risonment. Section 2. That every person ^vho fraudulently affixes, or causes, or procures to be fraudulently affixed, any trademark regi.stered pursuimt to the statutes of tlie United States, or any colorable imitation thereof, calculated to deceive the public, to any goods of substantially the same descriptive properties as those referred to in s;iid registration, or to the package in which they are put np knowing the .same to be counterfeit, or not the genuine gcK)ds referred to in said regi.st ration, .sliaJl, on conviction thereof, l>e punished as prescribed in the first .s|)e, wrapper, ease, bottle, or other package, to which is af.ixed sjiid rejjistered track'inark not so defaced, erased. ol)literated, and destroyed as to prevent its frautluhnt use, are in the possession of any pei-son with intent to use the same for the purjKjse of deception and fraud, then the si'veral judges of the circuit and district courts of the United States. an«l the commissioners of tlie circuit courts may, within their respective juriMlietions, proceed under the hiw relating to search-warrants, and may issue a search-warrant authorizing and directing the mai"slud of the Tnited States for the proper district to search for and seize all said counterfeit dies, plates, brands, engravings on wood, stone, metal, or other substance, mouhls. and siiid counterfeit trademarks, colorable imitations thereof. lal)els. brands, stamps, wrappers, engravings on ])aper, or other substance, and the said empty boxes, envelopes, wrappers, cas»*s, bottles or other packages that can be found; and upon satisfactory proof being made that siiid counterfeit dies, plates, liranils, engnivings on wood, stone, metal, eoloiable imitations thereof, lal)els. lirands, stamps, or other substance. mouUls. coun- terfeit trademarks. wrai>j>ers. engravings on ])a])er or otlier sub- stance, emjity boxes. eiiV('li)|)es. ui'appers, cases, lx)ttlcs. or other j)ackages, are to be used by the holder or owner for the i)urpase of deception and fraud, tiiat any of said judges shall have full IM)\\er to ordir ail said countfrfrit dies, pbUes. Itrands. engrav- ings on wood, stone, metal, nr other substaiK-e, moulds, <'oiniter- feit tradenuirks. colorable imitations tbei-cot', labels, brands, stamps, wrappers, engravings on {)aper or other sulwitances, empty Ikixcs, envelopes, wrapi)ers. cases, botfles, or othei* jiaekages, to be publicly destroyed. SFfmoN H. Tliat any person who shall, with intent to defraud any person or persons, knowingly and wilfully aid or ain't in the violation of any f)f the provisions of this act. shall U|)on con- viction thereof, be i)unishud by a line not exoeediug five hundred PENAL ACT OK AUGUST 14, 187G. 531 dollars, or imprisoiniicnt not more than one year, or l)oth such line and iniprLsijnnient.' I — This act Ih importuiit 1><>- ttiuBc of its coniu'ctioii with tin; Trademark CaflcH, 100 U. S. 82, '2', \j. K(l. r).'>(l. In tliat cam* the HupriiiH' <-«)iirt (Icclar.'d tin- Act of 1S7() to In- iiiii'onHtitvitioiial liccauHc tliiw act wart by its cxprcHH tcrinH con lined to fraudu, coiintcrfeits, and unlawftil use of trademarks whicli were reg- istered under tlie jiroviwions of the former act. Tlie rej^MHtration act iiein;; invalid, tlie criminal enact- ment intended to protect the rif^litn of refiistrants f^'\\ with it. Trade- mark Cases. 100 TT. S. 82-!)!), 27) L. Ed. r.r)0. It was held that there could he no couvictiuu uudur this act uulcua tiif certilicate of rej.'iMtration con- tairii'd wordn to hImav that tlx' al- h';ic(l o«tnT ac<|uirey him, because he coiild not comply with the clause of the Act of 1870 requiring a statement of the class of merchandise and the particular description of goods to whidi lie applied the mark. In rr Hankinson. S Off. Oa/. 89. An offi- cial fish inspector has no trade- mark in the odicial brand used by him, because he has no private ownership then-in. Chase v. Mays, 121 Mass. 343. A certificate of reg- istration of traflemark will not Im* issued to the applicant and his as- signee' jointly, /.'j" parte Spinner, 3;-) AfSS. D.. July, 1887. A trade- mark adopted l>y a real estate deal- er for use in the course of his busi- ness can not be registered. Ft piirlr !!oy. .'14 Off. :^^^. 1267. When PS2 TKADK.MAKK ACT «)K MAKfll 'A, 1881. r):i.T it appears tliat x-vcral parties Imvc tln! right to thi' u«o of tlip nutrk, iiKlcpcndciil rcKistration will nut lir ^'laiitiil to eitlu-r of tliciii. /,'.r jtiutf l.aii;,'i|on, (H OIF. (Jaz. 2S(t. A (•(•rtificatc will not lu' JHsm'tl to tiic asHigiH'i' of tin' a|)- jilicaiit. Et ]t(iitc l{oast('.') OflT. Oaz. 907; Kx iHtrtc Spiiini'r, WTt MSS. I). 1."). Thii.s ri'<,'istrati(iri \va> nfu^fd when- tlie facts .>>lio\ved tliat "ap- plicant ia a V(d>iiitary association or IcagUf of flour mainifaiturcrfl, all members of which um- tiie mark upon their product and have an in- terest severally and in common in its protection; and tlic present ap- plication for rc;;istration is made hy tiie association tlirou<,'h its sec- retary, an ofliccr duly authorized to that end. Tlie ai)plicant is not a corporation, nor is it, in strict use of the term, a partnership; but it is a voluntary association or lea nut think this ortic*' hIu>uM n'pint«T tnid.mHrkrt which, thouKli lawful tradimarks Mt tho datf wlun ronintry i« hou>;ht. will Iktoiuo public prop- erly U'fon- tlio fxpirati»>n «f th«> thirty yearn. I»y ho doinj; the Pat- ent Ofllct- would Ih' plaofd in the lifrht of utt.ni|itin;; to aid in pro- lon^in^ a monopoly, wliirli niani- fostly, undi-r tin- docixions of tlic oourtu, i» unwarrantr*!. To thus attempt to ^'ivi- th<" petitlontr a monopoly for numy years lon^'ir than i« ^.'ivfii hy tin- patent would be a fraud upon the publie." Duell, Commissioner, in Hx parte Velvril Co.. S4 OIT. Caz. S(»7. To the same effect w»' Hx parte K. 11. (Jilsou Co., 83 OJT. Gaz. 101)2. 4 — "Under the statute of Marcli 3. 18S1. 'owners of trademarks,' under certain conditions as to use and up- tain repistration tlurefor. The phrasi* 'owners of trademarks' manifestly limits tlie rij:ht of re},'- istration to sucli pirson or por- Bons, natural or artificial, as pos- sess the lepal title to that for whicli re;;islration is souplit. and it further limits the ri<;ht of re<,'is- tration to that which is a trade- mark. It is then-fore incumbent upon the various triiiunals of the ofTice having in char;.'e the re;ris- trati- cause of the al)S4>nce of legal title in the applicant — for example, wlien it a|>pears that i)efore appli- tant adopted ami usey anoth«'r. I'.ipially is it tlie province ami duty of the tribunals of the olliee having jurisdiction of the registration of trademarks to decide wlieth«'r the thing presented for registration is a trademark. An applicant may he the owner of tin- thing alleged to 111' liis trad»mark, and yet the tliin;: presented for registration may not i)e a trademark. Tlie state- ment and declaration of applicant tliat the thing |iresented for regis- tration is a trademark are not con- ilusive. The ipiestion is what the thing i.s'. and not what it is eallvd. That the statute vests in this oflice the power to jiass upon these two (piestions I believe, and to pass upon such (pu-stions has been the uniform practice of my predeces- sors ever since the enactment of the trademark law of ISSl' Duell, Commissioner, in F.x parte The Hronson Co., 87 OfT. C.az. 1782; and in Fx parte lUiffalo Pitts Co.. 89 0(T. Caz. 2000. .•S — Commerce with tlie Indian tribes nuiy Im- cones, or with anv memlMT of an liulian tribe, is TKADKM AKK ACT OF MAUCII -i, 1881. 535 owners shall he domiciled in tiie United States or located in any foreign country or trilie, which, hy treaty, convention, or law," affords siniilar privileges to citizens of the United States, may obtain i-etristration" of such trademarks hy complying with the foUowiug re(iuirements: fdiiiid, altli, eitinj; United Stat.8 V. Holliday, :? Wall. 407, 18 L. Kd. lf-2; 'iViiilory v. Cuyntt, Mont. 4(j. G — Tiie faet tliat a mark is law- ful* in a foreif,'n country is no test of its rc;,'istral)ility here. In re Meet & fliandon, 18 MSS. D. 250. In that case registration was refused althoujih the mark had hcen re^'- istered in France. e allowed rejxistration. /« re Manske & Co., (i4 OIT. Gaz. 8r)8; In re Schmidt, ').•} MSS. D. 7. Under this act a foreigner is enti- tled to no other or further rights than a citizen of the United States. Ex partr BufTalo Pitts Co., SO OfT. Gaz. 20f)0. The distinction between the terms "treaty" and "convention" is purely artificial. "A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations." Mr. Justice Field, in \Miitney v. Rob- ertson, 124 U. S. 100-104, 31 L. Kd. 388. The International Convention for the I'rotection of InduHtrial Property, signed at Paris, Marcii 20, 1HH:{, and acceded to by presi- (Untial proclamation on behalf of the United States, March 29, 1887, can not become operative in the ab- sence of federal legislation. Opin- ions of the Attorney-General, 1880, p. 2.")3; 47 Oir. Gaz. 308; A'x parte Zwack & Co.. 70 OfT. Gaz. 18.-)5. For treaties and conventions, 177(i-1887, see "Treaties and Con- ventions Between the United Stati'S and Other Powers:" Gov- ernment Printing Ofllce, 1880. The declaration with Great Brit- ain is drawn so as to confer mu- tual trademark rights upon the sul)ji'cts and citizens of each of the contracting parties throughout the dominions and possessions of the other. Citizens or residents of British colonies are therefore ])ermitted to register their trade- niiirks under this treaty whenever it is satisfactorily shown that in the respective colonies similar pro- tection is afforded to citizens of the United States. 7 — "Registration under the Act of 18S1 is of but little, if any, val- ue, except for the purpose of creat- ing a permanent record of the date of adoption and use of the trade- mark; or in cases where it is nec- essary to give jurisdiction to the United States courts." Hawley. .T , in Hennessy v. Braunschweiger, 80 Fed. Rep. 064. To the same efTect see Waukesha Ilygeia Mineral Springs Co. v. Hygeia Distilled 536 AIM'KNIUX 1>. 1st. By (.aiusing to bo rti-ordcd in the Patent Ofllce a state- ment spiH-ifyinjr mune,'* ilomieilf." location,'" and citizeiisliip'' of tlu» party applyiiijr: tlu* rlass of iiicrcliaiKlisi' and tlie paiiio- Wator Co.. ;o itiT. Ciiz. l.UJ). fi:J K.hI. Kt'p. 4:. G24-(5'27 ; Hrowtr v. lUnilton. .'>:$ Ffd. Hop. 38!i; Adnnis v. llrisil. .tl F.d. Hrji. 275»-281. The act iliHs tint tlifiuc trade markn. — "It will !>»' olmt-rvfd that the stnt'.itc (nffrrinj; to thi' Act of 1S70) (1(>«'9 not dffiiif till' tvrm 'tradrmark.' or say of what it shall consist. The term is used as thoiijih its eif^mification was al- ready kntiwn to tin- law. It speaks of it as an already existing thing, and protects it as such. The thing to lie protect«'d must he an exist- ing lawful trademark, or some- thing that may then for tlie first time be adopted as a lawful trade- mark indej)endent of the statute. There must he a lawful trade- mark adoptid without n-ference to the statute, and then, by taking the pre8cril)ed steps, that trade- mark, so already created and ex- isting, may receive certain furtlier protection under the statut*'." Moorman v. Hoge, 2 Sawy. 78. The reasoning of this opinion is equal- ly applicalde to the Act of ISSl. L. II. Harris Drug Co. v. Stucky, 4(i Fed. Hep. (i24 ('•28; Es parte M. Ulock &. Co., 40 ()(T. Caz. 44:i. 8 — The christian name of tin- applicant should Im> given in all caM*R, insti-ad of tlie initial only, for reaH<»nH indicated in Mniiroe Cattle Co. V. Becker, 147 I'. S. 47. 37 I.. Kd. 72: l'nitresent in- ti-ntioM of departing therefrom." CJordon, .1.. in Carey's ApjMal, 75 Pa. St. 2(11-20;'). lo — W iiere an ajiplication shows the ap]dicant to he a citi/.en of one foreign country and locat«'d in an- other, his application will he gov- erned hy the existing treaty, con- vention or law of the country of his location. I)y location is m(*ant tlie situn of the factory or other jilace of business of the applicant. In rr Ilaggi-nmacher, (iO OlT. Gaz. I 4:is. 11 — What the applicant's citizen- 1 siiip may be is wholly immaterial.) His riglit to registration is gov-» erned by the country of his loca-- tion. which may or may not be > identical witli tliat of his citizen- ship. In re Haggenmacher, supra. Citizenship defined. — Citizenship means "residence with intention of remaining permanently at that place. A man may reside in a state for an indefinite pi'riod of time witliout becoming a citizen, but the moment a man takes up his residence in a state di(Ter<'nt from tiiat where he formerly was domi- ciled or was a citizen, with intent and j)urpo8e of making the new j)lace of residence his futtire homo, tliiit moment he loses his ft)rmer doniieih', and Ix-conies domiciled in the new j)lace; or in other words, he <'eas«'s to be a citizen of the former jdace of residence ond be- comes a citiztn of the i«tate of his acloption." Turner. .?., in Winn v. Cilnier, 27 Fed. l!ep. 817. TKADK.M \l;K ACT ()!•' MAKCIl :{, lK81, 537 ular tlcscription of ^outls coiiipriscd in sucli clajis to which the particular trademark has I)oen appropriated; '^ a description of the Iradeniark itself'^ fac-dmiles thereof,'^ and a statement of 12 — The fact tliat tlic Amoflkcnj,' Manufacturiii;; Company had ap- j»li«'d its mark to fotton ^'oodn ex- cept prmts did not f;ive it an ex- ohisivo rif»ht to its use on all cot- ton f^of)ds iiirhidin/; prints. Amos- keag Mfj,'. Co. v. (iarner, 5') Barli. IT)!. The tber Comb Co., 16 MSS. D. 38. Bourbon, wheat and rye whiskies, wines, l)randies and gins, may be included in one registration. In re Boehm tS: Co., Comm. Decis. IS?."), p. 103 ; as may "agricultural im- plements, ' In re Manny &. Co., 17 MSS. D. 155; "canned goods," In re Fitzpatrick. Davis & Co., 18 MSS. D. 278 ; and "cutlery," In re Kampfe Bros., 58 MSS. D. 306; as well as proprietary medicinal and toilet compounds, In re Knight, 38 MSS. D. 341. One registration may, however, cover all the classes of goods upon which the trademark has been used. Ex parte Clark- Jewell-Wells Co., 83 Off. Gaz. 915. Hut a jiicture and a word can not lie emiiodied in the same regihtra- tion unless they are true alterna- tives. IJx parte J. I). Richards & Sons, 54 MSS. I). 425; Kx parte Adam Roth Oro. Co., 62 Off. Gaz. 315; Ax parte Kinney, 72 Off. Gaz. 1340; Kx parte Muir, 87 Off. Gaz. 357; I!x parte Lazarus Scliwarz & Lipper, 64 OIF. Gaz. \AO(i. 13 — The description must dis- tinguish the essential from the non-essential features of the mark, /n re Volta Belt Co., 8 Off. Gaz. 144. Tlie essential features being those .serving to distinguisli the goods of the applicant, an essential feature can not be anytiiing that is not a valid trademark, sucii as the geo- grapiiical word "Lancaster." In re Farnum & Co., Comm. Decis. 1880, )). 155; 18 Off. Gaz. 412; In re Adri- ance, Piatt & Co., Comm. Decis. 1881, p. 52; 20 Off. Gaz. 1820; In re Pierce, 23 ^LSS. D. 16. The de- scription and facsimile incorpor- ated in the certificate of registra- tion are evidence to show the ex- tent of the owner's claim of trade- mark, when he sues for its protec- tion as a common-law tradi-mark. Richter v. Reynolds, 5!) Fed. Rep. 577 ; Kohler Mfg. Co. v. Beeshore, 53 Fed. Rep. 262; s. c, 8 C. C. A. 215. The essential feature of a trademark is not tliat which the registrant elects to designate as such, but that which would strike the public mind as its most salient feature. Ex parte Standard Fash- ion Co., 89 Off. Gaz. 189. 14 — This section does not con- t<'mplate registration of form, ma- terial, or color. Materials are not 53S APPENDIX D. the inoile in which the name is applietl and nflixed to goods,*' HulijiTt to n|iprnj)riati«>ii at* tradi'- mark ; it Iihh Ihh-ii wi ln'Ul in re- gard to till UM'il as ta^tt U|Hin pluK tulMicfo, L<»riUar«l v. Trid*'. 2S hVd. Ufp. 434 ; nor is a mi-tliod of lironz- inj; hori*»'»luM' nails, Putnam Nail Co. V. lUnn.t, 43 F't'd. Hep. H(K»; :.9 Ft-d. Kcp. HOD; 8 C\ C. A. M'Z; nor the form of sticks of rlu-wing ^oim, Adams v. Iloist-l, 31 Ki-d. Rop. 27!>: nor tlu* method in which ptKxls arc arran;.rrd in jiaoknues, Jhid., and Davis v. Davis, 27 Fed. Rep. 4!>(l. For furtlier discussion nf form, color, etc., see ante, pp. 280 rt scq. A fac-simile need not eontain any unessential portion of tlie mark sou;.'ht to he registered. In re Watson, Ifi MSS. D. 467; In re Armstrong & Co., 2G MSS. D. 2r.n. One fae-simile only is suirKient to illustrate tlie mode of using the mark. In re Kimball, Comm. Decis. 1887, p. 54. Fac-aimile drflned. — "A fuc-sim- jle is an e.xuet counterpart of an original, and a facsimile npre- 8«'nted hy a drawing is an e.xact counteri»art of an original, so far as tlie nature of a drawing per- mits. A close adherence to the language of the statute would seem to rtf|uire that in each case the trademark and nothing hut the trademark sliould he represented hy the drawing, and while, perhaps, it would he going too far to apply in all eases a rule so rigonnis, it is certainly within the discretion of the olTjce to insist upon it in eases where • • • Icgitiinnte — articles that may be transported, in contradistinction to those fixed species of property wliich the law includes uiiiler the term real estate. Ihid. Hcgistra- tion under this act is limited to marks used upon manufactures or merchanilise. /« rr Ilankinson, 8 OfT. Gaz. 80. It is a sulhcient applica- tion if the mark is used in adver- tising, and a litliographed repro- duction of it iuBcrtcd in each box TRADEMARK ACT OF M AltCH '\, 1881. 39 and the length of timt- diiriiif^ \vlii<;li the tradfiiiark luus been used."' L'd. liy paying into the treasury oX tiie United Statcts the s\nii of twenty-live dollars, '" and (;oin7)lying with .'nieh reg'ula- tions as may be prescribed l)y the Coniiinissioner of Patente. contain'mt,' tlu' mcrcliaiidisc lluy & Todd Mfj,' Co. V. Querns Broth- ers, K(! Oir. Cnz. l.'J-i.S. 1(5— Till- lan^Miaj,'!- of tlio Act of 1870 was "the K'lijrtli of time, if any, durinf^ which the tra(hmark haa heen used." This was con- strued to admit marks to registra- tion that never had heen used in commerce. In re Rothschild, 7 Off. (!a/.. •220. It must now he sliown as u prereiiuisite to re^'istration that there has l)een actual applica- tion of tlie mark to merchandise and actual user in commerce. Uni- ted States V. Seymour, 66 Off. Gaz. 1167. Repistration under this stat- ute avails nothing if tlie name or symhol is never used. Siegert V. Ahhott, 72 Hun. 24:5. It was held in one case that a citizen of France who had not de- posited his mark in the Patent Of- fice under tlie provisions of the treaty of ISCtO between the United States and France could not main- tain an action for infringement. Lacroix v. Escohal. 37 La. Ann. 533. But in a later case it is held that a registration under the Act of 1881 hy a French citizen ren- ders the deposit of the mark under the terms of that convention un- necessary. Soci§t6 de la Benedic- tine V. Micalovitch, 36 Alb. L. J. 364. The dates of adoption set forth in the applications of two rival registrants are not conclu- sive. Einstein v. Sawhill, 61 Off. Caz. 2S7. Where actual user ap- jtears to have been first mad<- after application for registry, the mark may i)e admitted to registration upon the filing of a HUi)plcmfiital application. Einstein v. Sawhill, (2), 64 Off. Gaz. ir,33. User in a foreign country alone does not entitle an applicant to reg- istration under this section. Farmers Mfg. Co. v. W. R. Har- ri.son & Co., 9(5 Off. Gaz. 2062; Le- prince v. Her & Morris, !)2 Off. Gaz. 189. "Limited sales in this country by a foreign manufacturer upon especial orders to supply par- ticular customers" do not give a common law right to the mark "since they did not constitute a use of the mark in such circum- stances as to publicity and length of use as to show an intention to adopt it as a trademark." Allen, Commissioner, in Farmers Mfg. Co. V. W. R. Harrison & Co., 06 Off. Gaz. 2062. 17 — The fee cannot be refunded because registration is refused. In re Thayer, 54 Off. Gaz. 957. Where the domestic branch of a house having offices in the L'nited States and abroad, filed an application in ignorance of the fact that an iden- tical application had been made by one of the foreign offices, the fee paid on the second application was refunded. In re Finlayson, Bousfield & Co., 01 Off. Gaz. 152. 540 Arrisnix i>. Section 2.'" Tliai tlic application pivsorilied in the forepoing section must, in (inKr to creute any rifjlit whatever in favor of the party lilinjr it. In- acconipanicii l)y a written tlcclaration veri- lif»l by the person, or hy a nieniU'r of a (inn,'" or by an officer of a coriJonition apjilyin^r, to the effei't tliat such party has at the time a ritrlit to the u.se of the tra(hMiiark soii;;lit to he reg- istenxl, ami th;it no othrr person, linn or coiporation has the ripht to such use, either in tlie identical I'onn or in any such near resein])lan('e thereto as niif;ht be cah'iilated to deceive,'-'" that such trademark is used in comnuTee with forei^Mi nations or Indian tril)es, as above indicated,-' and that the tiescription and fac-siniiles pres«'nted for registry truly represent the mark sought to be it'gistered.-- Section ;^.23 That the time of tlie receipt of any such appli- cation shall be noted and recordee made liy one not a nn'mlirr of tlie firm but merely a so-called "director." Kx parte Kirker, Greer & Co. (Ltd.), 37 MS.S. 1). .S1I2. 20 — Registration will lie refused wln-nover in the opinion of the commiBHioner the mark offered is 8o gimilar to a registered mark as to l)e likely to lead to mistake or confusion. Kx parte Coon, '>R Off. Ca/. 040. In case of doul)t con- cerning such similarity, that douht will he resolved against tlu' appli- cant. In re How«', ;'>() M.SS. 1). 1«)8; In re Bogardiis, r>0 M.S.S. I). 2. 21 — The declaration on oath that there has hi-en a user of the mark in the claswB of commerce speci- fied is insist4'd on hy the Patent Office. Et parte Strashurger &. Co., 20 Off. Orz. \r,r,. 22 — A word and a figure wliirh are true alternutives constitute n single mark. Morrison v. Case, 9 IJlatchf. ri48; 2 Off. Gaz. rA4. Hence they may be covered by one regis- tration. In re Weaver, 10 Off. Gaz. 1 ; Kx parte Kinney, 72 Off. Gaz. 1.140. But where they are not true alternatives, as in the case of the word "Crescent" and the figure of the crescent moon, and the word and figure might convey wholly different meanings to the observer, they will not he registered upon a single application. Kx parte Laz- arus Sehwarz «!i: Lipper, 04 Off. (III/,. ]'MH>\ Kx parte Roth Groeery Co., (12 Otr. Gaz. -M-i. 2.3— See Act of 1S7(). sees. 79, 80, ante. The fact that this act does not expressly exclude de- scriptive words from registra- tion do<>8 not raise a presumption tliat descriptive words should be iiiimitted to registration. L. H. Harris Drug Co. v. Stucky, 4fl Fed. Rep. 024027. 24 — See cases cited in note to ■'.T 70 of the Act of 1870, ante. TRADEMARK ACT Ol' MARCH '.i, 1881. 541 A mark that is deci'ptivi- in itH iiutiire will not receive n-j^iatra- tion. A'oj parte liluch & Co., 40 Off. Ga/. 443; In re Chichester Chemical Co., r>2 Off. Oaz. l()(il; In re American Sardine Co., ('(imm. Decis. 187:{, p. H2; In re Cn.ve, 07 Off. Gaz. 1447. The coat-of-arms of the United States, or either of the states, will not be admitted to reg- istration. Kx parte Sclimaciitenherg Bros., .'■)1 MSS. 1). 204. Nor will a descriptive word: as •'Alliaiiy Beef," for ciiniied sturgeon, In re Ames, 23 Off. Oaz. 344; "Chili Colorow," for tal)le sauce, In re Railton, 2.'-) MSS. D. 321; "Time- Keeper," for watches. Ex parte Strasl.urger & Co., 20 Off. Gaz. l.^f); "CristiiUiiie," for artificial jewels, A'x parte Kipling, 24 Off. Gaz. 89!). Nor a picture or word tliat is descriptive or deceptive. Kx parte Martin, 8!) Off. Gaz. 2258 ; Ex parte Wolf, 80 Off. Gaz. 1271; Ex parte Grove, G7 Off. Gaz. 1447. Nor a geographical word; as "Cromarty," for dried fish. In re Proctor. .Jr.. .■)1 Off. Gaz. 1785; "Trenton," for saws, hi re Amer- ican Saw Co., 58 Off. Gaz. 521; "Cloverdale," In re Hendley, 72 Off. Gaz. 1654. In many instances, how- ever, where the commissioner has vtwc«'n tin- tw») rla»w9 men- tion«-riniarily have a pw)j.'raphiral nuaninj; — for oxam- pK', t«Tnis ciidiiij,' or compoundi'd with hwcli words a» 'city,' 'town,' 'shire,' 'mount,' or 'mont.* 8uch words, 1 til ink, should not be reg- isten-d, for the reason that they are clearly j;eo;;raphical in their primary si^mifieance, even if it can not Ik- said tliat they are widely enou;.'h known to come strictly un- der the first class. It seems to me that the word in question, 'Clover- dale,' clearly comes under the third class." Hx pnrtc Hendley, 72 Off. Gaz. l(i.')4. A <;eo;,'ra|)hical word does not become properly rej^istra- ble by beinp enclosed in a geomet- rical fi^nire. So the word "Yuca- tan" was refused registration as a mark for leather, even thouf;ii en- clowd in a s<|uare fi;:ure. h!x parte Weil, 8.1 Off. Oaz. 1H(I2. 2.') — Tliis prohibition is strictly enforced. Even a name used as a mark for twenty yi-ars, and admit- ted to re^iistration under the Act of 187(» has lieen refused registra- tion under this statute. In re Fair- child, 21 Off. Oaz. 789. f'onfrress by an enactment under date of Au^rust T), 1882, provided: "That nothinj.' contained in the law (of MarLh 3, 1881), shall prevent the TCfi'iHiry of any lawful tradtmark riffhtfully uwd liy the applicant in foreiffn commercf? or commerce \\ \i\\ Indian tril>es at the time of tlie pac!-ajie of wiid act." 22 Stats, at l.arj,'e, p. 2H8. This proviso has admitted to r«'j;istration names of corporations, as, for example, the words "Union Metallic Cartridge Co.," which Were in use as mcr- tluindise marks prior to March A, ISSl. Hut no name of a corpora- tion not used prior to that time as a mark can now be admitted to re^rist ration. h'x parte Creedmore ( artri, 1882. Uepistration has been re- fused to a name as part of a trade- mark which also included a device. A'j? parte Adriance, Piatt & Co., 20 Off. C.az. 1820. But a name used as part of an old combination trademark has been admitted to re^'istry. A'j parte Freibery & Workum. 20 Off. (Jaz. 1104. A proper name joined to a geographi- cal name does not constitute a valid trademark, therefore "Buf- falo IMtts" WHS refusi'tl re^'istra- tion as a trademark for threshing machines. Kx parte Buffalo Pitts Co.. 81) Off. Caz. 20(59. 2rt — Registration has been refus- ed where the applicant's mark, "Triumphant" fur (lojir, had been registered by another under the Act of 1870, and not re- registered under the Act of 1881. f'x parte l.yon. Dupuy * Co., 28 Off. Oaz. 191 ; Dyrenforth. .\cting Commis- sioner, tersely observing that "To decide otherwise would be to open Pandora's box and tiirn loose fraud TU'ADKMAICK ACT OF ,M.\U< H 'A, 1 SS I 543 appropriati:d to the same class of nKTcliaiKlisc, or wliicli so nearly resembles some other pereon's hiwliil trademark us to lie likely to cause conrusioii or iiiistiikc in the iniiMJ of the public, or to deceive i)ur(has('rs.-" In an application for rcj,Mstration the Commissioner of Tatcnts shall dfcidc the pr<*sumptive lawful- ness of claim to the allej^cd trademark; -'' and in any disfnite be- tween an ap|)licant and a i)revious rcf^istrant, or between appli- cants, he shall follow, so far as the same may be applicable, the practice of courts of etpiity of the United State« in analogous eases. -" upon iiuli\ iilunls ami imposition upon tlu* pulilic." Tlic fact that tlu' applicants used tin- mark in forci^'H commerce wliilc tlic record did not show tlie re;;istrai)t to have done so was held immaterial. Ibid; and to the same elFect, Yale Mff,'. Co. V. Yale, 30 OIT. (la/.. IIH.}. A trademark consisting,' of a de- sipn will not be admitted to re;,'i.s- tration, when the same design haa been embodied in a d»-si<;n patent •granted to anotlier. Hx parte Let; & Sliepard. 24 Oil". (\iv/.. 1271. 27 — Tlie commissioner must de- cide, "first, if tlie applicant lias actually used the trademark in lawful commerce witli forei. Section 4. That certilifates of ropistry of trademarks shall he i»iueil in the iianu' of tlic I'liitt'tl States of Aineru-a uiider the seal of the Department of tlie Interior, and shall be sitrned by the t'onnnissioner of Patents, and a r.-cord there(d". to^rether with printed eopies of the speeilieiitions, shall l»e kept in books for that purpose. Copit^ of tradeiiuirks antl of st^itements luui tleelarations til.-d therewith, and eertitieates of re^nstry so sitrned and sealed, shall 1h' evidenee in any suit in whieh sueh trade- marks shall be brouj^ht in eontrover-sy.'"' an iiitpliiant sliows )>ot- U'T titlf he will lit- admitted to registration notwithstandinjj a pri- or rejiistry. Yalo Mf},'. Co. v. Yale, :»0 on", (iaz. IISU. In such a case the Imrdin of proof to estahlish priority is upon the applicant. Manitowoc Mf},'. Co. v. Dickerman, ')7 OfT. (>&■/.. 1721. In cases of in- terference the question presented to the commissioner is substan- tially the same as would arise in a court of erences. Einstein v. Sawhill, OH OfT. Ga/. lOlH. An apjjlicant pre- »«'nted for re<.'ihtration a mark s\ili Btantially the uarac us ono regis- tered by another under the Act of ISTU. wiiicli had not been reregis- t.nd under the Act of 1881. Reg- istration was refused by the ex- aminer. I'll'' applicant tlien sought to institute an interfer- «'nce; this was refused because the former registration was void. I'nder all the facts the commis- sioner notified tlie registrant un- der the Act of 1S7() tliat an appli- cation for registry was pending with wliich his registry would in- terfere if it were a registry under the Act of ISSl, and that si.xty (lays would be allowed wherein the former registrant might make an application under the Act of 18S1 with a view to inti-rference. /,'j parte American Lead Pencil Co., (;i OIL Gaz. ir>i. 30 — The decision of the Commis- sioner of Patents upon interfer- ence proceedings was held under the Act of 1870 to render the issues presented to him r< s mljudi- cntn and they can not be reopened in a subse(|iient proceeding be- tween the parties. Hanford v. Westcott, F.'d. Case No. 0.022; 10 OfT. Gaz. 1181. But in passing upon the same question under the Act of 1881 Judge Adams said, of Ilnnford v. Westcott, "if tlie rea- soning of that case was ever per- suasive, it can not be considered TRADEMAKK ACT OF MAIICII 3, 1881. 545 SiiCTioN 5. 'i'liul ii (•(•r-tificatc of registry slinll remain in force for thirty years fioni its date, except in cases where the trade- mark is claimed for and applied to articles not man u facta ren the Act of 1881 went into efTect. But all persons to whom regis- tration was granted under the Act of 1870 were entitled to register under tliis act without additional charge. .Tacohy & Co. v. Lopez, 23 OfT. Gaz. 342. 33 — As to the cvidenciary value of the certificate of registration, see Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watcii Case Co., 179 U. S. C)6r)-G72, 4-1 L. Ed. 377; Brower v. Boulton, 7 C. C. A. 507; fiS Fed. Rep. 888; United States v. Duell, 17 App. D. C. 478; Glen Cove Mfg. Co. v. Ludeling, 22 Fed. Rep. 824; Hen- nessy v. Braunsciiweiger, 89 Fed. Rep. 064; Welsbach Light Co. v. Adam, 107 Fed. Rep. 463. That this section has no bearing upon the jurisdiction of a state court in a proceeding under a state statute see People v. Molins, 10 N. Y. Supp. i.m Thus the registration of a mark by another throws the burden of proving priority upon one who subsequ«'ntly applies for registra- tion for the same marl<. Manito- woc Mfg. Co. v. Dickerman. 57 Off. Gaz. 1720. See Act of 1870, § 78, 79; ante. 54G APPENDIX D. under this act, niul afTix the samo to merchaiulise of siihst^intially tlie siinu' (losrriptivo proj^rrtics jus those (U's(! Fed. Uep. •306. Blanks and envelojjes used by a tele{.'raph company are not "mer- chandise" within the meaning of this section. Postal Tel. Cable Co. V. Netter, 102 Fed. Rep. (■>!>!. .1.') — Registration of a mark com- mon to the trade does not confer an exclusive right to its us<\ Stachelberg V. Ponce, 128 U. S. 686, :i2 L. VA. r>aO. Registration of a mark is not conchinive. Its uw may Ix- re- htrained at the suit <»f one who has a prior right to its use. Chii wlio shall procure the registry us tlie owner of a tray any fraudulent means, shall be liable to pay any damajre snistained in eons4'(iuenee thereof to the injured party, to he rtMiovered in an action on the ciuse.-''^ Section 10. That nothitif,' in this act shall prevent, lessen, impeach or avoid any reiueily at law or in e(juity which any I)ai'ty aggrrieved hy any wrongfful use of any trademark might have had if the provisions of this act had not heen passed. ^^^ Section U. That nothing in this act shall he con.strued ai unfavoral)ly atfecting a claim to a trademark after the term of regi.stration shall have expired; nor to give cognizance to any court of the Uniteil States in an action or suit between citizens of the same state, unless the trademark in controversy is used on goods intended to be transported to a foreign country, or in lawful commercial intercourse with an Indian tribe. ^" Section 12. That the Comtmi.ssioner of Patents is authorized to make rules and regulations and prescribe forms for the trans- fer of the right to use trademarks and for recording such trans- fers in his office."**^ 37_See Act of 1870, § 82, ante. 38— See Act of 1870, § 83, ante. ''The present act does not abridge or qualify the common law right, but by tlie express term of sec. 10 preserves it intact." Wallace, J., in LaCroix v. ]May, IT) Fed. Kep. 236. 39— See Act of 1870, § 78, ante. Where both parties are citizens of the same state the averments of the complaint must show that both the parties are using tlie mark in commerce witli foreign nations or with tlic Indian tribes. Ryder v. Holt, 128 U. S. .52.1, 32 L. Ed. r)20 ; Luyties v. HoUender (1), 21 Fed. Rep. 281 ; Schumacher v. Scliwenke. 26 Fed. Rep. 818; Luyties V. Hollender (2), 30 Fed. Rep. 632; Gravely v. Gravely, 42 Fed. Rep. 265; Prince's Metallic Paint Co. V. Prince Mfg. Co., 53 Fed Rep. 493. Such an averment is necessary only where the proceed- ing is between citizens of the .same state. It is not necessary wliere the complainant is an alien. Henncssy v. Braunsciiweiger, 89 Fed. Rep. 664. 40— See Act of 1870, § 81. This section provides for transfers only being registered. An instrument affecting the use of a trademark, but not amounting to a transfer or assignment thereof, can not legally be registered in the Patent Office. Waukesha Springs Co. v. Hygeia Water Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 438-442. 548 APPENDIX I>. Section l:{. That citizens aii«l residents of this countrj' ^vis}l- iiip the i>n)tection of tnuliMuarks in any fomjni countn', the laws of whii'li nH]uin' rej^istration here jus a condition ])riM'o(lcnt to jrettin^r snch prottH'tion there, nuiy rejiister their trademarks for that pnrpose as is al)ove allowed to foreif?^ners. and have eertificate thereof from the ]*atent Office.^' 41 — ■Oiii- rciulin^ tlu" wction would infor that foroiKiiors havo lH«<'n allowinl iindtT tho procedin^' Mftions »onn' privilcjj*'; Imt a «nn'ful roadinj; of tlu* net failH to disclose tliat a forri^rncr is en- titled to ttuy other or further ri)ilits than those piven to citi- zens of the l'nit«'d States. The phrase 'as is ahove allowed to for- eigners' renders the section mean- ingless." Duell, C'omtaissioncr, in i:x pnrtr BufTiilo Pitts Co., 89 Off. APPENDIX E. TRADITMARK ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905. (:5n stilt. I.., 7-is.; SkctionI. (AsanioTulcvmay *, 190G, ch. 2081, 34 Stat. L. 108 : February IS, 1!)()!), rovided sueh owner shall bedoinieiled within the territory of the United States, or resides in or is located in any forei^ni countrv whieh, ])y treaty, eonvention, or law, affords similai- |>riviley filing in the Patent Ofnce an application therefor, in writing, addressed to the Commi.ssioner of I'atents, signed Tiy the applicant, specify- ing his name, domicile, location, and citizenship; the class of mer- chandise and the particular description of goods comprised in such class to which the trad.?mark is appropriated; a statement of the mode in which the same is applied and affixed to goods, and the length of time during which the trademark has been used; a description of the trademark itself sliall be included, if desired by the applicant or reqnired bv the Commissioner, pro\nded .snch de- scription is of a character to meet the approval of the Commis- sioner. With this statement shall be filed a drawing of the trade- mark, signed by the applicant, or his attorney, and such number of specimens of the tradeanark as actually used as may he re- quired hy the Commissioner of Patents. Second, hy pa>nng into the Trea.snry of the United States the sum of ten dollars, and otherwise complying with the requirements of thi.s act and such regulations as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Patents. The enactment of a law whose provisions should extend to the owners of trademarks used in interstate commerce was inspired by the omission of such a provision in the Act of 1881. Concern- ing that a.,t, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller has said, that "Obviously 549 O.')0 APPENDIX K. tho ai't was passml in view of thi' iK-i-isioii that tlu' prior act was unconstitutional, and it is, therefore, strictly liniitcd to lawful conuncrce with foreign nations and with Indian tribes. It is only tlu* tradcnuirk used in such coiniiu'rce that is adniitttnl to re^'istration. and it can only he inrriny;ed when used in that eonniiert'c, without ri^ht. hy another than its owiu'r." ' Sec. 1 of the Act of ISSl was suhstantially identical with the ahove section in other respe<*ts, except that the ahove sec- tion retpjires specinien.s of the tradcnuirk as actually used to he IiKm], and reduces the frovernnuMit fee from twenty-five dol- lars to ti'U dollars. Sec. 1 should he read in connection with the followin^T sec- tions of the Act of .May 4, \WG, 34 Stat. L. 1uell, in the ease of //(ti) d- Todd Mfg. Co. v. (Querns Bros. {{]. D. 181)0, 25; ^Q, O. (J. V.^2.^^) that it is unnecessary to attach physi- cally the lal)el containinp: the mUrk to the packafre.s of poods, but that it is sufficient to place the label bearing the mark in the liackage containing- the goods. On the other hand, it has been held that a mere advertisement of the goods associated with a mark is not such a usf» of the mark as will create a trademark right (-87. Louis Piano Mfg. Co. v. MerkrI, 1 Mo. App. 305; Ilazclton Boiler Co. v. Tripod Boiler Co., 142 111. 4f)4 ; Hartshorn IV. Philhricl-, C. D. 1002, 427; 101 0. G. 2077), nor the use of a mark in ordering goods or selling them to customers {Thompson V. Montgomery, 6 R. P. C. 4€4) . In the case at bar the mark was Tiot printed or impressed upon the goods sent out for use, for this ^^x)uld have rendered theni unfit for the object intended, nor ^y&s the mark placed on the packages or on a lalx?l placed in the packages; but the m-ark was plainly printed on samples of the press-board identical in all respects with that furnished to cus- tomers except as to size. These samples co\ild not be put into presses and used in the way press-1)oards are ordinarily used ; but they could be otherwise tested as to color. tJiickiiess, quality, etc., so that persons who received them could determine the advisability of ordering press-boards of the quality exhibited, and when so ordered and the orders were fillee or show your mark not oidy as consisting of what you .say it is, but you mas-t include such portion of the acccss-ories, or parts of tiie lal)el as I think are a material portion of the mark, although you may think otherwise. The power is an autocratic one and its possession by the Commi.ssioner of Patents can not l)e presumed but nnist, we think, be set forth in the statute with reasonable clearness. • • • Xowliere in the act do we find any power vested in the Commis- sioner of Patents to decide for the applicant the scope of the trademark. * * * AVe repeat that we do not think that Congress in- tended to confer upon the Commissioner of Patents authority to say to an applicant how nvuch or how little of the etnbellishments appearing in connection with what may be called the essential feature of a trademark, fonn an actual part of the trademark. Rather do we think that this right of .selection and designation rests with the applicant. No general rule can possibly be applied, and where this is the case it is unwise to attempt to e.xercise a power iu»t expressly vested in an executive office. The proper forum for the decision of such questions is the courts, where each case can l)e passed upon as it arises." hi re Sfan/lard Under- ground Cable Co., 27 App. D. C. 320, 123 0. G. 656; followed in Graves v. Gunder, 136 O. C. 227. Sjirrimru.'i. — ?"'ollowing tliis sec,tion. Rule 22. po. trademark as actually used. If the Examiner believes that the specimi'ns filed do not disclose an actual use of the trademark he may refu.se registration on that ground, and his action may be reviewed l)y append, but not by petition. /sV jxtrtr liarclay t(- Barvhvi. I'U O. fj. 15(52. So on an applieation to register the words "Library Slips" as a trademark for trading coupons the sp«M'imens showed the words in a nundter of places (»n the cou|>(>n but always in.cojnie<*tion with other words. They were not so used as to suggest they were arbi- trary words used to indicate ori^n or ovMiership of the coupons THADK.MAICK ACT <»K FKUKI ' AUV 20, 1905. 553 and registration was tlierefore (Iniiid. 1-Jx [mrte Magazine d; Rook Co., 135 0. G. 6G1. Copii of application for use in Jitifjation. — A copy of the file of a pendinjj^ or abandoned application for re^Mstration will not be furnished to a stran^^er to the record (•xcei)t when a jiid^e before wlioni a suit is pcndiiii; certilies that a copy of the application would be material and ivlevant for the party requesting the same. In re John C Doinl d Co., C. I). 1!»()S, 134; 134 O. ii. Vl'.H. Application not prima facie ( ride nee of on-nersliip. — In aJi op- position proceedinj^', the ai)plicant"s application is wot prima facie evidence of ownership of the mark. Green, Tweed d; Co. v. Manufacturer's Belt Hook Co., 137 O. (J. 2221. lieguitration of matter formerly copurighted. — "The appellant further ur^^es that re;4istration should not be granted P'orbev be- caus<> he has registered under the copyright laws a lalxd embody- ing his present trademiU'k. It is urgeart( Kinfidii I'tKhiiu/ Assn., lilt (). (i. 2*J:{4; ('. I). 15105, 538. See sec. 2, Act of May 4. I'.tOC), :U Stat. L. IGl), supra. Application — Agreement Ixtween drauiug an>l (l< scriplion. — There mnst be no inconsistency between the drawiiit; and the dest-ription, even tliou^di tiie variance is trillinp. A word hyphen- ated in the drawing mnst be so written in the description. Kx parte Athins d- Co., 110 O. G. 22:^6; ('. D. 1905. 544. Sectio.v 2. (As amended February IS, 1000. ch. 144, 35 Stat. L. r»27.) That the application prescribed in the forefioinj; section, in order to create any riirhl wliatever in favor of the jiarty filing it. nnist 1)e accompanied by a written declaration verified by the ap])licant. or by a member of the firm or an officer of the corpora- tion or association applyinlication to be the owner of the trademark soiieht to be regristered. and tiiat no other i^erson, firm, corpora- tion, or association, to the best of th(^ applicant's knowled'jre and belief, has the ripbt to use such trademark in the T"'nite(l States, either in the identical form or in ^uch Ticar resemblance thereto as miirlit be calculated to dec(-ive: that such trademark is used in commen-e amoncr the several states, or with forcij:rn nations, or with Imlian tribes, and that the description and drawing pre- sented tr\dy represent the trademark sou<:bt to he repristered. If the applicant resides or i.^: located in a foreign country, the state- ment refpiire(i shall, in addition to the foregoing, set forth that the trademark has been registered by the applicant, or that an ap- plication for the registration thereof has been filed by him in tlie foreign country in which he resides or is located, and shall give the date of such registration, or the application thereof, as the case may be, except that in the application in such cases it shall not "be neces.sars' to state that the mark has been used in coTiimerce with the TTnited States or among the .states thereof. The verifi- cation ref|uired by this sectiotwnav he made before any person within the United States authorized by law to admini.ster oaths, or. TKADKM AKK ACT OK KKMKI " AKY 20, lfJ05. 555 wlicn llic ;ii»pli(iant rcsidos in a forei^ country, before any minis- ter, chanjc d'affaires, counsel, or commercial agent holding com- mission under the (Jovernment of the United States, or hefore any notary pui)li(', judj^'e, or majristrate havinj,' an oftieial s<-^il and au- thorized to administer oaths in tlie forei^Mi country in \diich the appli''ant may he uhose authority shall he i)roved l)y a c(;rtificate ui' a diplomatic or consular oHiccr of the United States. /• This sectioji emhraeos the matter included in see. 2 of the Act of 1S81, with adclitional provision.s comx-rning the require- ments of the .statements to he made hy a H'sident of a foreign country. "Statement/' refers not to the particular doeuiiicnt which is ordinarily termed the ".statement" of the ai)[)lication, l)ut to all the facts set forth by the applicant in the declaration. Ex parti Konigliches llofhrauam cO Munchen, 14G 0. G. 720. Section 3. That every applicant for registration of a trade- mark, or for renewal of registration of a trademark, who is not domiciled within the United States, shall, before the issuance of the certificate of registration, a.s hereinafter provided for, desig- nate, by a notice in writing, filed in the Patent Office, some person residing within the United States on whom process or notice of proceedings afTecting the right of ownership of the trademark of w'hich .such applicant may claim to be the owTier, brought under the provisions of this act or under other laws of the United States, may be served, with the same force and efTect as if served upon the applicant or registrant in p(M'son. For the purposes of this act it shall be deemed sufficient to serve such notice upon such appli- cant, registrant, or representative by leaving a copy of such pro- cess or notice addressed to him at the last address of "which the Com,missioner of Patents has been notified. This section is new and made desirable by the provisions of sec. 2 jH'oviding foi- tlu^ registration of marks by persons domi- ciled in foreign countries. Tn the manner indicated, effective .ser- vice can be had in case suit is in.stituted involving the mark regis- tered. The designation of a resident in the Uniteil States required by this section must be made by the foreign applicant : the authority to make such desitrnation can not be delegated to an attorney. Ex parte E. ^Vertheimcr & Cie., 132 0. G. 679. 550 APPENDIX K. Section 4. Thnt-nn nppHoalioii for rogistration of a tradoniark filfd in thist'ouiitry Ity any iutsdii wlio has pn-viously ivf^iilarly tilt'il in any foivi^n rountry whirli. l)y treaty. conviMition. or law, affords similar privili'nt's to oitizcns of tin- liiittd States. ;in ap- plication for ri'jrist ration of tlu'.sanw tradi-iiiark sliall lie accorded the same force and elTect as uould he accordetl to the same appli- cation if filed in this country on the date on which a|>plication for rejristration of tlu' same trademark was lirst lilt;d in such foreiirn country: Provided, That such application is Hied in this country within four months from the- date on whicK the application wns first filed in such foreifju country: And provided. That certifi- cate of reiiistration shall not ho i.ssued for any nuirk for ropi.stra- tion of wliich appliitition has hoon filed hy an applicant located in a foreipru country until such mark has heen actually reg:istered )>y the applicant in the' country in whicli he is located. This section is new in the present act. and is intended for the protection of ap|)licants who have previously filed an application for registration in a forei^ni country wherein recif)rocal privilcfjes are extended to citizens of the I'nited States. Its provisions are in furtherance of Article 4 of the International Convention. "Art. 4. Anyone who shall have regularly deposited an appli- cation for a * * * trade or counnercial nuirk in one of the con- tracting? states shall enjoy for the purpose of makinf? the deposit in the other states, and uiuler reserve of the ri;?hts of third par- ties, a rifrht of priority durin Stat. L. JUH; .lanuary S. l!)l;i. ch. 7, M Stat. L. VA'.l) That no mark hy which the ^'oods of the owner of the mark may he distin^ruished from other proods of tlie same class shall he refused registration as a trademark on account of the nature of such mark uidess such mark — " (a) Consists of or comprises inwnoral or scandalous matter. TRADKMAKK ACT OK KKUIU'AUY 20, 1005. 557 " (h) Consists of or coinpriscs tlio flaj? or coat of arms or other insignia of tlie United States or any simulation tli(!rcof, or of any state or municipality or of any foreign nation, or of any design or picture that has been or may hereafter he adopted hy any fra- ternal society a.s its emblem, or of any name, distinguishing mark, character, emblem, colors, flag, or bainier adopted by any insti- tution, organization, club, or society which was incor{)orated in any state in the United States prior to the date of the adoption and use by the applicant : Provided, That said name, distinguish- ing iiKirk, cliaracter, emblem, colors, flag, or banner was adopted and publicly used by .said in.stitution, organization, club, or society prior to the date of adoption and use by the applicant: Provided, That trademarks which are identical with a registered or known trademark owned and in use by another and appro- priated to merchandise of the same descriptive properties, or which so nearly resemble a registered or known trademark owned and in use by another and appropriated to merchandise of the same descriptive properties as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive purchasers shall not be registered : Provided, That no mark which consists merely in the name of an individual, firm, corporation, or a.ssociation" not written, printed, impressed, or woven in some particular or dis- tinctive manner, or in association with a portrait of the indi- vidual, or merely in words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used, or of the character or quality of such goods, or merely a freogray)hical name or term, shall be regis- tered under the terms nf this act : Provided further, That no por- trait of a living individual may he registered as a trademark except by the consent of such individual, evidenced hv an instru- ment in writing: Aitd provided further. That nothing herein shall prevent the registration of any mark used hy the applicant or his predecessors, or hy those from whom title to the mark is derived, in commerce with foreign nations or amnncr the several states or with Indian tribes which was in actual and exclusive use as a trademark of the applic^ant, or his predeces«!ors from whom he derived title, for ten years next preceding Febmary twentieth, nineteen hundred and five: Provided further. That nothing herein shall prevent the reei^tration nf a trademark otherwise registrable because of its being the name of the appli- cant or a portion thereof." 558 APPKNnix R. Tho Conmiitti'o on rnlcnls of the House of Kopreseiitutivos, in tlu'ir report recoinnu'iuling the passage of the act, said in n'lemu'e to this section: "In the past there has heen eonsiderahle eoniphiiiit in repird to what eoiiM l)e registered un(h'r the existing; law as a trade- mark. Muih of the time of the c-ommittee in tlie hearing; of tlie hill hi\s heen consnmt'd in a disenssion upon this partieidar fea- ture of the lejiislation. See. f) of the proposed l)ill, we hulit^'ve, will permit the registration of all nu»rks whieh eould, under the tommon law as expouniled hy the eourt.s, he the sul)jiH.'t of a trademark and heeome the exelusive property of the party using the same as hi.s trademark. "The lan^'ua^'e of see. f) is taken almost verl)atim from see. 5 of the hill propcvscd hy .Mr. Ai'thur I*. (Jrecley. as eontained in the report of the Commissioners appointed to revise the statutes relating to patents, trade and other marks, and trade and commercial names, under the Act of Coni^rcss, approved June 4, 1898. Full protection is given by the court, uniler the doctrine of unfair competition, to the users of such marks as do not. under the common law, constitute teeimieally what is known as a trademark, and which can become the subject of exclusive own<'rship. Hy other sections of the bill, to Mhich attention will be called later, provision is nuuie for an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents to the District Court of the District of Colum])ia from a decision refusing the regis- tration of a trademark. By tliese provisions of the l)ill it would seem that there could not he a conflict of decisions, al)out which so much complaint has been made in the past. Through the decisions of the courts a uniform system and uniform rules gov- erning and controlling the registration of marks will in time be adopted. "A provi.so has been added pernntting all marks that have been in actual use as trademarks for a period of ten vears to be regis- tered." See the Act of August 5, 1882 : "That nothing contained in the law entitled 'An act to authorize the recistration of trademarks and protect the same.' approved March third, eighteen hundred and eiehty-one, shall prevent the registry of any lawful trademark rightfully nsed by the api)licant in foreign commerce or commerce with Indian tribes at the time of the passflge of said act." This act is ba«e(' on the provisions of the British trademark law in reference to what are knowii as "old marks"; that is. marks in n.«5e prior to the date of the pa-ssage of the first law which provided for registration of trademarks and defineraiii."=" Efjcct of ronihiniiig iwti-rr(jistrnl)lc nords. To eojubine two or more words, each of which i.s non-registrable, does not make the eombination registrable. H.Lr.STR.VTIONS. "Lexington Club," whiskey. Kcniuckn Distill cries t(- Ware- house Co. r. Old Lexington Club Distilleries Co., 'M App. D. C. 223. 135 O. G. 220; "Toledo Premium," dry goods. Ex parte Leiris d Co., 66 MSS. Dec. 21i>, VM)S Com. Dec. 170; "America's Strength," coffee, Ex parte Mejier Bros. Coffee «.(• S. Co., 1.3;") O. G. 893; "Rust? Never!" hooks and eyes, Ex parte De Long Hook d- Eije Co., 128 0. G. 885. ''Mi^hravdiug'' {within the inea)ting of the Fooi!i\ ii S(in. !>!) (). G. 2.T2I. 14 — Fx pnrtr I5rn\vn A Co., U.J < t. ('.. r,(i\. Ifi — Kx pnrtr Dayton Spict- Milln, la-l O. G. 893. IC— /vj- parte Cross. C. D. 1007, 12.-.; 128 O. G. iry'^. 17 — Kx parte Niclmlaiis, 1(>1 (">. G. 208. 18 — Hx parte Auto Grninl Piano ("o., IT)-) O. G. 307. in — t'x parte Mt. Carlxin Co., l.-.O O. G. 828. 20 — /■'x parte Aunt in, Nicholrt A: Co.. 107 O. G. 981. THADKMAICK ACT OK IKUKLAUY 20, lOOf). HGl wliicli is falsely hraiidod as to the state, territory, or counlry ill wliieli it is iiiainiractured or produced." it has been held that, "it is iiiiMiiiil)eiit upon the Patent ()fli<-e in eonsiijer- iiij,' the registrability of t rade'iiiarks to eo-operate with the other departments of the (jioverninent in the ohservaiiee of the provi- sions of this aet, and to that end it is tiie duty of the Examiner of Trademarks to refuse to register a mark when in his oi)iriion statements are contaiiu'd in the label presente(i which fall under the cate^'ory defined as 'misbranded' in the Food and Drugs Act above referred to." Moore, Com., in /vx inute liarrlan d Bnr- cloy, ('. U. 11)08, lo4, lAo (). (J. 217. False reprcsextation on labels a bar to retjistration. — "It was the purpase of the act to protect honest manufacturers and deal- ers because in so doing the public would in turn be protected. It was not the purpose of the act to recognize the right of any person, firm, or corporation, to deceive the public by the use of a deceptive mark. In other words, the Oovernment will not •become a party to a fraud." Kobb, J., in Levy lO To. v. Uri, 31 App. D. C. 441, 185 0. G. 1363. ('o)ifroUiug and (listingHishing feature Diust he registrable. — That the controlling ami distinguishing feature must be registra- ble, or the mark as a whole will not be registered, see In re Crescent Tupeirriter Supply Co., 30 App. D. C. 324, 133 0. G. 231; In re Hopkins. 29 App. D. C. 118, 128 0. G. 800; Ex parte Union Carbide Co.. 135 0. G. 160. "Descriptive of the goods.''— ''The Aet of IDO.l, chapter 84, sec. 5, only declared the accepted law of trademarks when it pro- hibited tlie registration of marks which consists— 'merely in words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used, or of the character of such goods.' "The general proposition was well established that words merely descriptive of the character, qualities or composition of an article or of the place where it was manufactured or produced, could not be monoi)olized as a trademark." McComas, J., in Re National Phonograph Co., C. D. 1907, 550, 128 0. G. 1295. Examples of inarhs held non -registrable because descriptive. — "No-rip." harness sweat-pads. Ex parte Crescent Mfg. Co.. C. D. 1901. 160, 97 0. G. 750: "Felt-less." harness sweat-pads, Ex parte McClain, C. D. 1902. 185. 99 0. G. 2101; '-Rust? Never!" hooks and eyes, Ex parte DcLong TJooh cO E]ie Co., 128 0. G. 885; "Standard." phonographs. In re Xational Phono- graph Co., C. D. 1907, 550. 128 0. G. 1295; "Fits-U." eye glasses and spectacle frames Cmere mis-spelling of "fits yon"). Ex parte American Optical Co., C. D. 1908. 102. 133 O. G. 1935; "Hold On." clutches for hat-pins. Ex parte Goldsmith iC Co.. C. D. 1908, 104, 133 0. G. 1935. "Asb€stos," shoes made of 6J APPENDIX K. loatluT an«l asbestos. ('. 1). TJOS. 111. liU O. (i. li.jT ; 'Mountjiin Dew." whiskey, C. I). 11»U8. 117, i;U O. 0. 513; *' Health Fo O. (J. litn ; "Nfxtolu'i'r." non-intoxifatini,' malt tlriiik, Ej parte Cetitrnl Consumers Co.. C D. liKIS, iStl. l:};') O. O. 1581; "Silver Dip," silver cleanser, Kx ixirte Cobb Mf7:i; "Apple k Honey." coufrh remedy containing cider lirandy anc! honey. E.r fKirtc JfeuJiIein tC* Co., 87 O. G. 179; "Self-Loadinp." cartridges, mnchester liepcatimi Arms Co. v. Peters Cartridqe Co.. C. D. 1!)08. 401, 30 App. 1). C. 505. 134 O. G. 2030; "Hestok." toilet paper (mis-spellin<; of "best stock"), Ej parte Scott Paper Co.. 137 O. G. 14S2. C. D. liK)8, 254; "Purity." peanuts, Ex parte Taylor li- Co.. 114 O. G. !)72. C. D. 1;H)5, 38; " Worthn'.ore," shoes, Ex parte Block Bros. Clothing Co., 124 0. G. 1521. G. D. 1906, 357; "Catarrhal Jelly." medicine. Ex parte Kcnyon, 124 0. G. 2001, C. D. 1906, 411. Examples of marks held non-regisfrahle because geographi- cal. — The registration of geographical terms is .strictly prohibited by sec. 5. In re Jloukins. 29 App. I). C. 118, 128 0. G. 890, C. D. 1907, 549. ILLUSTRATIONS. "Oriental," tvjx'writcr ril>bon. In re Crescent Ti/pewriter Supply Co.. 30 App. I). C. 324, 133 O. G. 231, C. D. 1908, 318; "O/ark," overalls, Ex parte Kcct d- liountree D. G. Co.. 115 O. G. 1849, C. D. 1905, 134; "Mat la wan." shirts, Ex parte Falken- berg, 115 O. C. 1065, C. I). 1905, 109; "Savoy." beer. Ex parte United States Brewing Co., 125 0. G. 352, C. D. 1906, 437. Uegi.it raidc geographical words. — The registrnbility of words having a geogra[)hical signification is dct(>rmined liy the nature of the particular word and the particular goods. Thus "Arab" has been registered for .sardines. Ex ))artc Seacoast Canning Co., 199 0. G. 617; "Hollander" refused resist rat ion for beer, Ex parte Conrad Seipp Brew. Co., 206 O. G. 877; "Orange Grove" refused registratiou for flour, //. Becker d' Co. ?•. Catn- brill Mfg. Co.. 3S A|)|.. D. C. 585, 179 0. G. 1111; "(Joldcn State" refused registration for tea, coffee, etc., Ex parte Cold- T!jadi:makk act of I'Kiuu'AKY 20, 1905. 563 hcnj, liotnn tl" Co., Ib2 O. (J. !I72 ; " Laki-sid.'," granted rcj^'is- tration for floor and wall covcriiiixs, AV parte I'mlrd Hoofing d; Mfg. Co., 187 O. G. VMS. .\(i)nc of coi>!/ii(ilitc(l publication.- -Tlwrv can he no valid registration of tlu' name by wiiicli a eoi)yrij,dited puhlication lia.s been known and sold, after the eopyri-rlit luus expired. Mtniain Co. V. Sundicate t'lib. Co., 1237 V. S. liLS, {>1-1, 5!i L. Ed. 1148. " Written, printed, ///(/^rc.s.sr'/, or woven in some particular or di.stinctirc manner," c/c— "it is helieve}stilliiiiiri(h Co, r. Davids. Ki") Fed. ]{vp. 7l>-J; riiMhUus Darids Co. r. Daii'l.s, 102 ('. ('. A. lM'J. 178 Fe.!. Rep. 801; Thaddcu.'i Davids Co. v. Darids, l!U) h\'i\. Hop. 285. 7 /if Davids casf ini( rpvctcd. — "We do not rcfrard the (hn-ision in tlu' Davids i-ase as holdiiii; tliat the statute direi-tly operates to grant a monopoly to one who rifjfht fully m'^ri.stens under the ten- year clause a ch'seriptive or geojfraphieal word. We take it as hoKlin^' that the si;itute was not intended to iH'nnit. under this clause, an inelTt^'tive and useless reiristration, and .so, in efTect. holdin Co., \'A N. V. S. :{!)1, aniniiiiiK !.')() N. V. S. 1)18. But such rcffistratioM is not coiiclusivf upon a state court cither as to the validity of the mark, or the ritrht of the applicant to register. Buijcilo linhhcr Mf(j. Co. v. liatavia liuljlnr Co., 15:} N. V. S. 77*), !M) Misc. Kep. -IIS. Si:CTio.\ (i. (As amended .Marcli 2, l!tU7, eh. 'iru.i, 'Ai Stat. L. 1252.) That on the filinf;: of an appliwition for registration of a trademark which complies with the rerpiiromcnt.s of this act, and the payment of the fees herein provided for, tlie Connnissioner of Patents shall cause an examination thereof to l>e made; and if on .sucli exaiiiination it shall appear that the applicant is en- titled to have his trademark registered under the provi.sions of this act, the Commissioner shall cause the mark to he published at least once in the Official Gazette of the Patent Office. Any per- son who Relieves he would be danuisred by the registration of a mark may oppose the same by filingr notice of opposition, stating the grounds therefor, in the Patent Office, within thirty days after the publication of tlie mark .sought to be registered, which said notice of opposition sliall be verified by the person filing the same before one of the officers mentioned in .section two of this act. An opposition may be filed by a duly authorized attorney, but said opposition shall be null and void unless verified by the opposer within a reasonable time after such filing. If no notice of opposition is filed within said time, the Commissioner shall i.ssue a certificate of registration therefor, as hereinafter pro- vided for. If. on examination an application is refu.sed, the Commissioner shall notify the applicant, giving him his reasons therefor. The amendment of ^larch 2, 1007. inserted the proviso that "An opposition may be filed by a duly authorized attorney, but such opposition shall be null and void unless verified by the opposer within a reasonable time after such filing." As the sec- tion read ])efore the amendment it was hehl that the oath had to be made bv the opposing partv, and could not be made bv an attor- iiev or asr^nt. W. H. Bakcr'v. Bnkcr, C. D. 1900, 337. 124 0. G. 909; Martin r. Martin cO Bownr Co., 27 App. D. C. 59, 122 0. G. 734, C. 1). 19(m, G42. After the amendment it was held that in the absence of a statutory requirement for a verification by .jLiti .VI'l'KNt)I.\ K. tlu' attt>riu'y, a notii'o of opposition filed by an attorney need not l»e verilioil ; that inasnnich as tlu* anu'ndiiu'iit ri-ciuirt'tl tlu' veri- tication to be made by tlie opposer within a reasoiuible time after its tiling, " verilication by lioth the attorney and his priiuipal would appear to be n>ele.s8 • ^ ** unless the opposition is verilied by the j>arty damaged it is held null and voiil aiui ean not form the liiLsis for any proeeedin^j, whether or not it is verilied by the attorney "" Billings, Asst. Com., in \Vplicant, in order that he may appeal, if he so (K'sires, from the decision. The procedure for api)eals is regu- lated by other sections of the bill. If, on the other hand, the ex- amination discloses that the mark is entitled to re<,'istrati()n, then the act jirovides tiiat the Connnissioner shall cause the mark to be published at least once in the Official (Jazette of the Patent Odice. The purpose of this publication is apparent. Owners of trademarks ought not to liave tln'ir rights to the use of a trade- mark jeojjardized by the registration of similar trademarks by other parties not entitled to the us(! of the same. Some notice should be given whei'eby the true owners of marks may hav(> an opi>ortunity to be heard by the Commissioner of PatcMits before any mark is registered and given, by reason of such registration. the evidence of ownership provided for by the terms of the bill." Opposition — Who inay maintdin. — A corporation (The As- bestone (>>. ) may oppase the registration as a tradenuirk of a word (Asliestone) which is a vital part of its cor{)orate nam<^, iti view of the {jrovisions of sec. 5 of this act, without jiroof of actual damage. Ashvstonc Co. v. Philip Cairif Mf(f. Co., 41 App. D. C. 507, 200 0. CSf)?. Opposition is the f)roper remedy "where the two (articles) are so nearly alike in their fuiulamental ciiara<'teristics and the uses to which they are ai»[)licd are so closely related tliat their sale under the same trademark would be likely to cause the pul)lic to believe that they were the out[)ut of the same manufacturer." Robb. J., in Woven Strcl Co. v. Kcn.shci/ il Maflison Co., 41 Apiu I). C. 247, IDH O. (1. 40.-). Opposition under the tcn-jfrnr r}aii./n>.M'jV);i proceeding. — Althoupli the opposer recites his registered mark ius a basis for his op|)()sition, a eross-hill pniyin^ the wuu-elhition of that rep:i>»t ration will not Ih> permitted to l>e Hied. JUirton .Meil. ('<\ r. Cniteii Drmj Co., 171> t). U. 2SS. Modifiration of mark after adver.'ie decision in opposition. — The defeated applicant may modify his application l)y (»ancelling the part of the mark involved in the opposition only if his mark is not thereby nnitilated. and on makinj,' nilidavit that the mark a.s modifietl was actually used. FLr parte \'i-Sti.r Prodiicts Co., 175 (). (J. 840. Opposition notice. — Amendment after expiration of the statu- tory thirty-day limit is not permissible, where the orij^inai notice is not of itself le<;ally suflieient to sustain the opposition. Xational Water Co. v. A. Kron Brewing Co., 197 0. G. 990. Oppo.^ition — F.fjcrt of answer under oath. — As the equity rules of the supreme court do not provide for an answer umler oath, sueh an answer is not evidence in favor of the party filing it. I'niver.'-al Motor Truck Co. v. lhiiver.'roceedings have Iteen instituted, the appli- «-ant will not be permitted to withdraw or abandon liis applica- tion unless he fonnally abandons his claim to the trademark. "Any other COU1-S4' would permit any applicant in an oi)position proceeding to escape .judgment in due course and at the same time reserve the (h'terininatiou of the (|uestions involved for whatsoever time he may feel inelinetl to rai.se the .sjime." Moore, TRADEMARK ACT OK KlJJKl AUY 20, '['M)^). 569 A.cting Cwiii., ill I'vifirt Safctif I'aprr Co. r. dronjr 1m Montr tf- Son, Vl'l O. (j. 80!). (It is hciicvcd that this ruliiiK k'ocs hcyond the jurisdiftioiial power of tlir rateiit Ollicf, and tliat the ri^ht of the applicant to al)aiulon the application without abandoning liis trademark sliould never have been (luestioned.) Opposition — Opposcr must have applied mark to merchandise. — An opposition based on use of the nuirk in advertising only, and not api)lied to nierehandisf will be dismissed. "If he has not used the mark as a tnidemark upon floods of a like description he can sutTcr no dama«;o from its re},'ist ration by another." Sh»'[)ard, C J , in lUittle Creek Sanitarium Co. v. Fuller, 30 Ap{). D. C. 411, l;U (). (J. 129!), C. D. 1908, 370. Opposition— Burden of proof. — Where there is no apparent conflict lictwccn the mark sought to be registered and the mark of the opposcr, the Ijurden is on the opposcr to show that as a matter of fact the registration of the applicant's mark "will likely cause confusion and deceive ordinary purchasers." An- drew McLean Co. v. Adams Mfg. Co., 31 App. D. C. 509, 136 0. G. 440, C. D. 1908, 487. Opposition — Application not prima facie evidence of owner- ship. — In an opposition proceeding, the applicant's application is not prima facie evidence of ownership of the mark. Green, Tweed c(- Co. v. Manufacturer's Belt Hook Co., 137 0. G. 2221. Opposition — Immaterial whether opposer entitled to register. — "It is not necessary, in order that an opposition .should be sus- tained,- that the opposer himself shall be entitled to regi.ster his mark for, if the opposer has used his mark prior to the time of its use by the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to the exclusive n.^e of it, even though he may be entitled to use it in common -with the rest of the pnblic." ^loore, Com., in Oreen, Ticeed cl Co. v. Manufacturer's Belt Hook Co., 137 0. G. 2221. Opposition — Time for filing. — The thirty days allowe. liattle Crcrl, Sdnitdtiinn Co. v Fuller, 30 App. D. C. 411. 1:54 O. (i. \'2\)\l h'iyht to oppo7 ; follow inir .\atural Food Co. r. )VillUtms, 30 App. I). C\ 34S, 133 O. G. 'S.V2; Lany v. Crccn liivcr Dist. Co., 33 App. D. (.'. 506. 148 0. G. l'SO; Johns-Manvillc Co. v. American S. P. Co., 33 App. 1). ('. 224. 145 O. (J. 257. Opposition — /I'c.v Ad judicata. — A judgment or deeree in a prior case is eonehisive in a later ease as to <|ues(ions aetually in issue and deeided. and not as to those whieh mi^'ht have been decided. Ilorinc v. Wrndr, 2!» App. 1). ('. 415. 12!) O. C. 2S5S. Conse- (pientiy tile i'aet that an opposition has hccii ilecided ajrainst the applicant is no bar to the rr-ristration of the mark under a later application based on the ten-year «elau.se. Carter Med. Co. v. Jiarclaii, 3*) App. D. C. 123, lf)2 0. G. 785. So an adjudication by a federal court in an infringement suit that a former re^ristration of the plaintiff there was invalid is not conclusive \ipon the Patent Office in an opposition between the same parties involving an application to retrister the fortner plaintiff's mark of more limited scope than the former reari.stration. A. Lrsclien d- S'ons Rope Co. V. Broderich d- Ba.^rom liopi" Co., 30 App. D. C. 451, 164 0. G. 977. Opposition to part of the mark fionyht to he reyistered. — Op- position lies to the attemjited retristratiwi of a mark which in- cludes a tradename in use by the opposer. Johnsvn v. Brandau, 32 App. I). ('. 348, 139 O. G. 732. Opposition to marl: used on article made under crpired patent. — Opposition is the proper remedy as airain.st an applica- tion to recrister a mark which has become public property throu}rh the expiration of the patent upon the article to which the mark was applied during the life of the patent. J. A. Srn'vcn Co. v. Toulrs Mfq. Co., 32 Ann. D. C. 321. 140 O. G 510- CdrlLPrr. dork Mfy. Co. V. VdeU ^Yorly stranger to the record. — As sec. 7 provides that the Commissioner "may refuse to register 0<2 Ari'lINDIX E. lK)th of two intorfcrinp marks," evitlenco of use by others, not jtartirs. is rompt'tont as triidiii^; to show that lu'ither party Ijuh th«> right to r»'iristt'r. (lohUit d Co. i. llritz d- Co., \2'> (). (i. l»89, C. D. i;)OtJ, 45;}. hitnfercncc — Efjcd of lorhrs. — That one party to an iiitorfer- •'iu'(> has p»'nnitt«'; 181 0. G. 2G5. Intrrfircncc — Kvi'hncT of a})anandoned must establish that the original owner * * * not only discontinued its use but in- tended to abandon the same." ]\loore, Com., in Madame Irene v Sclnreinbnrg. C. D. 1912, 114. 177 0. G. 1043. Section S. That every applicant for the registration of a trade- mark, or for the renewal of the registration of a trademark, which application is refused, or a party to an interference against whom a decision ha.s been rendered, or a party who has filed a notice of opj^osition as to a trademark, may appeal from the decision of the Examiner in charge of Trademarks, or the Examiner in charge of Interferences, as the case may he. to the Commi.ssioner in per- son, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 571 APPENDIX E. This section relates to tlie rijrlit of appeal to tlie (^onnnissioiier from the Kxamiiier of the 'rradeniark division of the Patent OlVu'e, or the lOxaniiner in char^'c of IntfrftTfnces. It is nioti/letl on see. 4!Mi!i, K. S. l'. S., rehitinjr to a|t|tfals in ajiplieations for letters-patent. That a reiinirenu-nt of division on the ground that the applica- tion einhraees items of merchandise not of the same descriptive I)rt.>perties is in efTect a rejection of the applitvition, and is re- vi('\\al)le hy appeal anil not on petition, ncc tJ.c parte Kingan Puckimj Afsn.. lll» C). (J. 22;J4, C. D. lilO"), 5:}8. Motion to aupprrxa evidence. — That a rnlinpr upon such amo- tion is not reviewable upon appeal {>rior to final hearinp save in a clear case of almse of discretion, see (irrrnr. Twcol i(- Co. v. Manufacturers' licit Hook Co. ]:V2 O. C. (JSO. Skction I>. That if an applicant for rejiistration of a trade- mark, or a i)arty to an interference as to a trademark, or a party who has filed opposition to the registration of a trademark, or party to an application for the cancellation of the registration of a trademark, is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, he may appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, on complyinpr with the conditioTis required in case of an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner by an appli- cant for patent, or a party to an interference^ as to an invention, and the same rules of practice and procedure shall govern in every stape of such proceedings, as far as the same may Ije appli- cable. This section, for the first time, creates the right of ai)peal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia from the decision of the Commissioner in trademark applications, interferences and oppositions. The decision of the court of appeals in appeals taken under this section is not '"final" within the m.-aning of sees. 8 and 9; Act February 9, 18f):i, 27 Stat, a* D. 4:U, 4:?fi, ch. 74. and hence is not appealable to the United States Supreme Court. A thins- V. Moore, 142 O. (}. 571, 212 U. S. 285, 291, 5:? I.. Kd. 515. 517. That this se<'tion. read with sec. 4915, H. S. \\ S., authorizes an a<-tion in a District Court to compel the registration, see Old Lfsin<)t(ni Chilt Pis. Co. v. Kcntucln/ Distilhrics d- Ware- house Co.. -2:^ Fc l)iisin('.ss ill whicli tlic mark is used. Such assi^ninient must he hy an iiistrtiiiieiit in writing ami duly acknowled^'ed accord- ing to the hiws of the country or state in vvhieli the siiine is exe- cuted; any such a-saignment shall lie void as against any subse- (juent pureliascr for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent OfTice within three months from (late thereof. Thr Commissioner shall keep a record of such assignments. The fii-st sentence of this section is merely a declaration of the law concerning the assignability of trademarks as it luis been set- tled hy the courts. The remainder of the section relat(*4 to the formalities attending upon the execution and recording of the assignment of registered marks. "Xo a.ssignee of a trademark registered under the Act of 1905 acquires any right to enforce it unless the goodwill of the business in which the mark is used is transferrtMl with the mark." Lacomhe, J., in Eisewan v. Schiffer, 157 Fe(l. Kvp. 47:}, 476. Reconhihic assignments. — Only assignments made in connection with goodwill will be admitted to record. A paper i)urporting to convey a territorial right to the use of a trademark is not recordable. In re Xational Chemical Co., l^U 0. G. 1298. Section U. That certificates of registration of trademarks shall be issued in the name of the United States of America, un- der the seal of the Fatent Office, and shall be signed by the Com- mi.s-sioner of Patents, and a record thereof, together with printed copies of the drawing and st-atement of the applicant, shall be kept in books for that purpose. The certificate fihall .state the date on which the application for registration was received in the Patent Office. Certificates of regi.stration of trademarks may be issued to the assignee of the applicant, but the assign- ment must first be entered of record in the Patent Office. "Written or printed copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings relating to trademarks belonging to the Patent Office, and of certificates of registration, authenticated by the .seal of the Patent Office and certified by the Commissioner thereof, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals could be evi- dence; and any person making application therefor and paying the fee required by law shall have certified copies thereof. 576 .VPPENDIX K. This siH'tion is Imsed on stv. 4. A«t of l!^?^!, onf<\ Tln« seal of tlu' I'ati'Ut Oflicf takos the place of the seal of tlu* Department of the Interior. 'I'lje tinal para^rraph follows sec. 892, K. S. U. S. Sk(*TI(»n 1-. Tliat ii iiTlili.'iiti- i^f rc^^ist nit ion shall rriiiaiii in fon-e for twenty vt-ars. cxerpt tiiat in the ease of trademarks i)re- viously rt-jfistered in a foreign country such ccitilicates shall cease to he in force on the day on which the trademark ceases to he pnitected in such forci<.Mi country, and shall in no case renuiin in force more than twenty years, uidess renewed. Ceiiilicates of registration may h«'. from time to time, renewed for like periotls on payment of the renewal fees re(|uired hy this act. upon re(pu»st of the realist rant, his lepral re|u-esentatives. or transferees of rei'ord in the Patent Office, and such rcipiest may he ma of the Act of 1S81. a certificate of repistration re- mains in force for thirty years from its date. That period is ♦■urtailed hy the ahove .section to twenty years. A re(pn'st for reiu-wal is not suhjcct to examination as is an oripinal application; it is pnnia facie evi(h'nce that the mark has not heen ahandoned ; and the renewal may he decreed under hill in e(|uity ajiainst the ("onvmissioncr unth^r sec. 401.'), R. S. U. S. Kitififi r. Stamhtrd Oil Co.. 42 App. D. ('. 'V2\, 203 O. G. 1556. •' Renewal in no .sense confers new rif;hts. It is a correction of the record to the date of renewal hy the re^'istrant or owner of the mark a.ssertin^' his continued use of it and. therefore, title in it." Van Orsdel. J., in Eirinfi r. S(,in."), post, the ri^dit to dis- miss without prejudice to the ri^dit to lih' a new jipi)lieation for eaneelhition has been denied, after issue joined and proofs taken ; said rulinj^ \w\ng upon the authority of Detroit r. De- troit Ciiii h'lj. Co., 55 Fed. Kep. 569, and (leorgia Co. v. HU finger, 12!> 1\h\. Kep. i:n. Ouicaidt r. Sew York If (raid Co., VMi O. G. 4:{7. Cancellation on request of registrant. — By virtue of the jurisdietion conferred by see. I'.i, the Patent Office will cancel a registration upon surrender of the certificate and upon the re(piest of the registrant owner. E.r parte liJooniington Canning Co., 119 0. G. 22:35. C. I). 1IH)5, 54:5. Section U. That the following shall be the rates for trade- mark fees : On filing each original application for registration of a trademark, ten dollars: Provided, That an application for regis- tration of a trademark pending at the date of the passage of this act, and on which certificate of registration shall not have i.ssued at such date, may, at the option of the applicant, l)e proceeded with and registered under the provisions of this act withaut the payment of further fee. On filing each application for renewal of the registration of a tradeiiiark, ten dollars. On filing notice of opposition to the registration of a trade- mark, ten dollars. On an appeal from the Examiner in charge of Trademarks to the Commissioner of Patents, fifteen dollars. On an appeal from the decision of the 1-iXaminer in ^charge of Interferences, awarding ownership of a trademark or cancelling the registration of a trademark, to the Commissioner of Patents, fifteen dollars. For certified and uncertifit'd copies of certificates of registra- tion and other papers, and for recording transfers and other papers, the .same fees as required by law for such copies of pat- ents and for recording assignments and other papers relating to patents. TUADK.MAKK ACT OK KKBKUAUY 1^0, 1905. 579 The I'oregoiiifj; jji-ovisioiis as to feos do not provide for the fee to be paid upon an applieation to cancel registration, althou^'h a fee is fixed for the appeal from tlic dcoisiori of the Examiner of Interferences in such cases. Section 15. That sections foity-nine hundred and thirty-five and forty-nine hundred and thirty-six of the Revised Statutes, relating to the payment of patent fees and to the repayment of fees paid by 'iiistake, are herdby made applicable to trademark fees. The sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States, re- ferred to in the above section, are as follows : Section 4935. "Patent fees may be paid to the Commissioner of Patents, or to the Treasurer or any of the Assistant Treasurers of the United States, or to any of the designated depositaries, national })anks, or receivers of public money, designated l)y the Secretary of the Treasury for that purj)ose; and such oflfic'er shall give the de- positor a receipt or certificate of deposit therefor. All money received at the Patent Office, for any purpose, or from any source whatever, shall be paid into the treasury as receivecl, without any deduction whatever. ' ' Section 4936. "The Treasurer of the United States is authorized to pay back any sum or sums of money to any person who has through mistake paid the same into the treasury, or to any receiver or depositary, to the credit of the treasurs', as for fees accruing at the Patent Office, upon a certificate thereof being made to the Treasurer bj' the Commissioner of Patents." Section 16. That the registration of a trademark under the provisions of this act shall be prima facie evidence of ownership. Any person who shall, without the consent of the owner thereof, reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or eolora'bly imitate any such trademark and affix the same to merchandise of substantially the same descriptive properties as those set forth in the registra- tion, or to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, or recepta- cles intended to be used upon or in connection with the sale of merchandise of substantially the same descriptive propei'ties as those set forth in such registration, and shall use, or shall ha"^e used, such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation in commerce among the several states, or with a foreign nation, 580 APPENDIX E. or with the Indian tribes, shall l>o liaMt- to an action for damages tlu'rt'tor at tlio suit of the truner thereof; and wlienever in any such aetion a verilii-t is n-ndered for tlu' plaint itT, the eourt may enter jiitl^inent therein for any sum ahove the amount found hy the verdict as the actual damages afcordin^; to the eircunu stances of the case, not exceeding? three times the amount of such verdict, tojrether "vvith the costs. This section substantially embodies the provisions of sec. 7 of the Act of 1S81, besides providinjj: for increasiiifj: the actual damatres found, to a sum not exciM-dinjU' three times the amount of the verdict. The first .sentence of tiiis section can not receive from the court a more liberal interpretation than was «jiven to the same sentence in the Act of 1881 ; and as to that provision in the former act, it wa.s expressly held that registration could not serve as the foun- dation for preliminary injunction. -' Obviously, a certilicate of rejristration may be introduced in evidence as prinw fa'ic proof of ownership. This would follow if the provision were not expressed in the act, as otherwise any registration act would 1k' idle. The Committee on Patents of the TIou.se of Represent owners thereof, who have complied with the terms of the statute, full and complete re- dress for violation of their rights. Ry another section of the bill provision is made for designating registered trademarks by printing under the trademark the fact that it is registered, as is done in cases of patents, so that any person who iiintatcs or counterfeits a trademark will do .so with notice, and should therefore be held to a strict accountability for tlie fraud I'om- mitted." 21 — A. Lcsclicii Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Hascom Uopo Company, I'i.l Fed. H.p. IJ'.t, 152. TIJ ADK.M \KK ACT OK I'KHKI AU V 20, 1905. 581 Tliut rcj^istration is l»y sec. ](> iriadi- prima facie evidence of ownership, see In re (Jorham MfS, title " Increa.se of I)ama<;es in K(piity." The Committee on Patents of the House of Re|)re.sentatives, in their rejxirt recommendiiii: the pa.ssaj^e of the act. said in refercnc<' to this section: '"By sec. !!• provision is made for proceedinjis in ecpiity aprainst the infringer of a registered trademark. Tiiis section corre- sponds in terms with see. 4(121 of the Revised Statutes relating to patent eases, except that it specially provides the manner in which profits shall he ascertained. Under existing rules it is necessary for the complainant to prove sales and costs with entire and ahsolute accuracy. The only persons having knowledge of the co.st of making the sales are the defendant or some one in his emi)loy. It lias seemed, therefoi-e, only fair anil just that if the complainant i)roves the sales, the defendant should he re- (|uired to produce evidence of the expen.ses he was [)ut to in making such sales as an ofTset against the sales proven hy the c()mplainant." Section 20. That in any case involving the right to a trade- mark registered in ac<'or(lanc(> with the provisions of this act, in which the verdict has heen ff)und for the plaintifT. or an injunc- tion issued, the court may order tliat all lal)els. signs. ])rints, pack- ages, \vra[)pers. or receptacles in the {)os.session of th(» defendant, bearing the trademark of the plaintifT or comi)hrmant. or any reproduction, coutiterfeit, copy, or colorahle imifalion thereof, shall he delivered up and destroyed. Any injunction that may be granted ujion hearing, after notice to the defendant, to pre- THADK.MAKK ACT OF rKURUAKY 20, 1905. 583 vent the violation of ajiy risht of the; owner of a trademark registered in accordance witli the provisions of tliis act, by any circuit court of the United States, or hy a .judRe thereof, may l)e served on the parties af,^ainst whom such injunction niay he granted anywhere in tlie United States where they may he found, and slial! he operative, and may be enforced by proceed- luixs to punish for contempt, or otherwise, l)y the court by whicli sucli iii.juiicliou was granted, or by any other circuit court, or ,iud^n' tlieroof, in the United States, or by the Supreme Court of the District of Cohunljia, or a judge thereof. The said courts, or judges thereof, siiall have jurisdiction to enforce said injunc- tion, as lierein i)rovi(h'd, as fully as if the injunction had been granted l)y the circuit court in which it is sought to be enforced. The clerk of the court or judge granting the injunction shall, wlien i*e(piired to do so l)y the court before wliich application to enforce said injunction is made, transfer without delay to said court a certified copy of all the papers on which the said injunc- tion was granted that are on file in his office. This section was modeled nn sec. 4966, R. S. U. S., part of the Copyright Act. Section 21. That no action or suit shall l>e maintained under the provisions of this act in any case when the trademark is used in indawful business, or upon any articles injurious in itself, or which mark has been used with the design of deceiving the public in the purchase of merchandise, or has been abandoned, or upon any certificate of registration fraudulently obtained. Section 22. That whenever there are interfering registered trademarks, any i)erson interested in any one of them may have relief against the interfering registrant, and all persons inter- ested under him, by suit in equity against the said registrant; and the court, on notice to adverse parties and other due pro- ceedings had according to tlie course of equity, may adjudge and declare either of the registrations void in whole or in part accord- ing to the interest of the parties in the trademark, and may order the certificate of registration to be delivered up to the Commissioner of Patents for cancellation. The Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, in their report recommending the passage of the act, said in refer- ence to this section : 584 .U'PENPix i:. "Sec. '2'2 proviili's lor llu- caiHtllatioii of cortiHeates of reg- istration wliirli havi' Iti-t'ii j:raiitfil to appliiaiits wlio arc siihse- (jiUMitly fouml not to he the owners of tlir marks. This section proviilcs only for the cancellation of traileniarks which are in conllict with other rejristered trademarks. Sec. \'.i provides that any person, whether the owner of any rejfistered trademark or not, who may deem himself injured by the rt'^istration of a Diark. may make application to the ('onniiissioner of Patents to cancel the registration thereof, and pHx-ccdinp^ are provided for any such ca.se protecting the rights of the registrant of the mark. ' ' Section 2;^. That nothing in this act shall prevent, lessen, impeach, or avoid any remedy at law or in ecpiity which any party aggrieved by any wrongful use of any trademark might liave had if the provisions of this act had not been passed. The Comniittee on Patents of the IIouso of Representatives, in their report reconunending the passage of the act, said in ref- erence to this section: "Sec. 2:] is identical with sec. 10 of the Act of ISSl on the subject of trademarks, and is intended to give the us(>r of a commercial mark, whether such mark comes within the technical definition of a tradenuirk under the i)rovisions of tiie proposed act the right to have such remedy agaiiLst those who make use of such mark with fraudulent intent, as is given by the courts under the doctrine of unfair competition, and to further pro- vide that the court.s of the United States shall continue to have such jurisdiction as they now have to enforce relief in such cases. ' ' Section 24. That all applications for registration pending in the office of the Comn'i.s.sioner of Patents at the time of the pas.s- age of this act may ))e amended with a view to bringing thorn, and the certificate issued upon such applic'ations, under its j)rovi- kIoils, and the prosecution of siu'h applications may be proceeded ■with under the provisions of this act. ** Pending" moans undecidccl. and docs not comproliond cases under final rejection. I'^r fxiric Marl: Cross Co., IK) O. (i. M'.V.^. A decision of the Commi.ssioner that an applicant is not entitled to amend so aT to bring his ca^e uiuler the Act of 100.1 virtually refuses registration, and is therefore ai)peaIablo. In re Mark Cross Co., 116 O. G. 2534; Ex parte American Separator Co., 119 0. 0. 339. TRADEMAUK ACT <)l' 1-KHUI ' AKY 'JO, 190.'). 585 Skction 2'). Tliat nny pc^rsnn who sliall procure roKistration of a tradt'iiiarU, or entry lliereol", in tlie ollfiee of the (.'oiimiis- sioiier of Tateiits l>y a false or fraudulent deelaratiou or re{)re- seiitatioM. oral or in writing;, or hy any false means, sliall be liable to pay any damaf;e.s sustained in eonsequonee thereof to the injured party, to he ret.'overed hy an action on the ease. This section i.s identical with see. !) of the Aet of iSSl. Section 2G. That the Commissioner of Patents is authorized to make rules and re^'ulations, not inconsistent with law, for tlie conduct of proceeding's in reference to the registration of trade- marks provided for hy this act. Section 27. That no article of imported merchandise which shall copy or simulate the name of any domestic manufacture, or manufacturer or trader, or of any manufacturer or trader located in any foreign country which, hy treaty, convention, or law affords similar privileges to citizens of the United States, or which shall copy or simulate a trademark registered in accord- ance with the provisions of this act, or shall hear a name or mark calculated to induce the pulilic to believe that the article is manu- factured in the United States, or that it is manufactured in any foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which it is in fact manufactured, shall be admitted to entrv at any custom house of the United States; and, in order to aid the officers of the customs in enforcing this prohibition, any domes- tie manufacturer or trader, and any foreign manufacturer or trader, who is entitled under the provisions of a treaty, conven- tion, declaration, or agreement between the United States and any foreign country to the advantages afforded by law to citizens of the United States in respect to trademarks and commercial names, may require his name and residence, and the name of the locality in which his goods are manufactured, and a copy of the certifieate of registration of his trademark, issued in accord- ance with the provisions of this act, to lie recorded in books which shall be kept for this purpose in the Department of the Treasury, under such retrulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, and may furnish to the Department fac-similes of his name, the name of the locality in which his goods are manu- factured, or of his registered trademark; and thereupon the 586 AlTLNniX K. Seori'tary ol" tlio Tivasiiry sliall oausi" one or more copies of the same to he transmitteil to eaeh eolkn'tor or other proper ollieer of customs. Section 2S. That li .^ii.iu l.i- lii.- *luty of tlie registrant to give notice to the pnhlic th.it a trath-inark is re^ristercd, either hy affixint; thereon the words " Kefristi-red in I'. S. Patent Oflice," or ahhreviateil tluis, " He};. V. S. I'at. OtV.,' (tr when, from the character or size of tlie tnuh'inark, or from its maimer of attach- ment to the artich' In which it is npproi)riated, this can not l)e done, tlien hy affixinp a hihel containiiif; a like notice to the pack- aijc or receptach' wherein th.' artich' or articles are inclased; and in any suit for infrin1. 128 C. C. A. 78. Section' 12!>. That in const ruin-,' this act the following; rules nnist he ol>served, except where the <'ontrary intent is plainly apparent from the context thereof: The United States includes and cnd)races all territory which is under the jurisdiction and control of the United States. The word "states" includes and emhrace.s the District of rolumhia, the territories of the United States, and such other territory as shidl he untler the jurisdic- tion and control of the United States. The terms "person" and "owner." and any other word or term used to desiirnatc the applicant or other entitled to a henefit or privilecre or rendered liahle under th" provisions of this act, include a firm, corpora- tion, or a.ssociation. as well as a natural person. The term "appli- cant" and "registrant" embrace the succes.sors and assigns of such applicant or registrant. The term "trademark" inclndes any mark which is entitled to registration under the terms of this act, and whether regi.stered or not. and a traih'mark shall he deemed to he "afTlxed" to an article when it is placed in any manner in or upon cither the article itself or the receptacle or packa^re or upon the envelope or other thing in, by, or with TKADLMAUK ACT UI-' rKHHCAUV 'JO, IDOil. 587 uliicli tlic N' OK TRADE- MAKKS UNDKH 'rilM TlxW I )KM AKK AC 1"S. rN!Ti:i) St\ti:s 1'atknt Ofkick, WnshiiK/ton. D. ('., October !.'>, 1913. fOUKKSl'ONDKNCK. 1. All business with the oflico should l>e transacted in writing. Unless by the consent of all parties, the action of the office will be based exclusively on the written record. No attention will be paid to any alle^red oral promise, stipulation, or undcnstaiiding in relation to which there is disagreement or iloulit. 2. Applicants and attorneys will l)e required to conduct their business with the office with decorum and courtesy. Papers pre- sented in violation of this requirement will be returned; but all such papers will first be submitted to the Connnissioner, and only be returned by his direct order. 3. All letters should be addres.sed to "The Commi.ssioner of Patents;" and all remittances by money order, check or draft should be to his order. 4. A separate letter should, in every case, he written in relation to each distinct subject of iiuiuiiy or application. Complaints apainst the Examiner in cliarfjje of Trademarks, a.ssiprnments for record, fet^s, and orders for copies or abstracts must be sent to the office in separate letters. f>. Letters relatiner and date of the certificate, and the merchandise to which the trademark is applied. n. The personal attendance of ai^plicants at the Patent Office is unneces.sary. Their ])usiness cnn l»e transacted by correspond- once. 7. When an attorney .shall have filed his power of attoniey, duly executed, the correspondence will be held with him. 8. k double correspondence with nn applicant and his attorney, or with two attorneys, can not, generally, be allowed. THADKMAKK ACT « >l' I'Kltltl AKV 20. l!)!)."). oSS !». Tlic oHicc can not uiidertak(! to n-spoiul lo iiKiuiricH pro- j)ouiul(i.\ i:. directly with tho nj^plioant, or such other attomey as he may appoint. A power of attonu-y appointinjf a sei'OMil principal attorney will not be entered uidess such power of attorney speeitieally revokes that j:iven the principal attorney of record (Rule 8). An attorney will be promptly notified by tiie docket elerk of the revocation of his power of attorney. IT). For jrross inisconduct the ( 'oniniissioner iii.iy refuse to reco^ni/e any person as an attorney, eitlu'r ^'ciierally or in any j)articular ca.s»> ; but the reasons for such refusal will l)e duly recorded and bi' subject to tlie ai)proval of the Secretary of the Interior. WHO MAY HKGISTEK A TR.VDEMARK. Act of Fel.. 20, 1005, sec. 1. If). A trademark may be regri.stered by any person, finn, corporation, or association domiciled within the territory of the Tnited States, or residing; in or located in any foreign country which, by treaty, convention, or law. atTords similar privili'<;es to the eitizens of the Ignited States, aiul who is the owner of such tradenuirk. and uses the same in commerce with foreign nations, or amon«r the .several states, or with Indian tribes, upon [layment of the fee re(iuired by law and other due proceedings had. (See Rules 17 and 20.) Act of Feb. 20, 100."), Hccs. 1. 2. and \ : Act of May 4, lOOfi, 8PC. 3. 17. Except as provided by sec. 3 of the Act of May 4, 1906, no trademark will be registered to an applicant residing or located in a foreign country uidess such country, by treaty, convention, or law, atTords similar privileges to tiie citizens of the United States, nor unless the trademark has been registered by the applicant in the foreign country in whidi he resides or is located, nor until such applicant has filed in tliis office a certified copy of the certificate of registration of bis trade- mark in the country where he resides or is located. In such (•ases it is not necessary to state in the applic;ition that the trademark has been used in connnen-e with the United States or among the several states thereof. Art of May 1. 1000. si-c. .1. 18. The ow7ior of a trademark, residing or located in U foreign countrv and who shall have a manufacturing establish- TKADEMAUK ACT 01-' KKHUIJAUY 20, UK)."). r>m merit within llio torritory of the United States, may rofristor a Irademark nscd on Hm- products of sudi estalilishment upon complying' with llu- piovision.s of tin; Act of Fehruary 20, l'J05, a.s j)rcscrilM'(| for owners of ti'adeuiarks domiciled within the territory oC the United States. WHAT MAY BE REGISTERED AS A TRADEMARK. Act (.f Frl.. 20. mo.-., wcs. 1, .-,. and 21; Act of K.-h. ]H, UlOO, boo. 1. 19. Xo tradeiiiari< will he retristered to an owner domiciled within the territory of the United States unless it shall be marie to apix'ar that the same is used as such hy said owner in com- nu^ree amoufr the several states, or between the United States and some forei|,Mi nation or Indian tribe; no trademark, except as provided by sec. 'A of the Act of May 4. liiofl, will be registered to an owner residing,' in or located in a foreifrn countr>- unless said country, by treaty, convention, or law, affords similar privi- leges to the citizens of the United States; no trademark will be registered which coiisists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter, or which consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of tlie T^nited States, or any simulation thereof, or of any state or nninicipality, or of any foreign nation, or which consi.sts of or comprises any design or picture that has been adopted by any fraternal society as its emblem, unless it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Commis-sioner of Patents that the mark was adopted and used as a trademark liy the applicant or applicant's predecessors, from whom title is derived, at a date prior to the date of its adoption hy such fraternal society as its emblem, or which trademark is identical Avith a regi.stered or known trademark owned and in use by another, and appropriated to merchandise of the same descriptive properties, or which so nearly resembles a registered or kno\ATi trademark o\raed and in use by another, and appropriated to merchandise of the same descriptive properties as to be likely to cause con- fusion or mistake in the mind of the pu1)lic, or to deceive pur- chasers, or which consists merely in the name of an individual, firm, corporation, or association, not written, printed, impressed, or woven in some particular or distinctive manner or in asso- ciation with a portrait of the individual, or merely in words or dcAices which are descriptive of the goods with which they 592 AIM'ENDIX E. are used, or of tlio clmrav'tiT or (luality of such poods, or nioroly u trt'of^raphical name or term ; no portrait of a living individual will be registered as a trailenuirk. except by tbe eoiusent of such indiviilual evidenciMl by an instrument in writinjr; and no trade- mark will be registered which is used in unlawful business, or upon any article injurious in itself, or wbicli has been useil with the design of deceiving the public in the purchase of mer- chandise, or whii-h has been abandoned. A.t of F.I.. 20. lito:.. Ktr. f); Alt of F.-h. IS. 1011. 20. Any mark, used in connnerce with foreign nations or among the several states or with Indian tril)es, may l>e registered if it has lieen in actual and exclusive use as a trademark of the applicant, or his jiredecessors from whom he derived title, for 10 years next preceding February 20, r.)05. (See Rule 32.) THE .VTPUCATION. Act of F.'l). 20, inOf), 8fc. 1. 21. An application for the registration of a trademark must he made to the Commissioner of Patents and must be signed by the ai)plicant. Act of Feb. 20, 100."), sec. 1: Act of Feb. 18, 1000, sec. 1. 22. A complete application comprises: (a) A petition, requesting registration, signed by tbe appli- cant. (See Form 1, p. fill.) (b) A .statement specifying the naiiie, domicile, location, and citizenship of the party applying, and if the applicant be a cor- poration or association, the state or nation under the laws of which organized; the class of merchandise (according to the official classification), and the particular descrijition of goods comprised in such class upon which the trademark has actually )>een used; a statement of the mode in which tbe same is applied and aflRxed to the goods, and the length ol" time during which the trademark li\ 1.. the siime munnor as other applications liled miuUt said Act of Fobruan- 'JO, 1905. Art of Feb. 20, lOOf), h.o. J. 21. An application for registration of a trademark, filed in this country by any person who has previously regularly filed in any foreign country which, l)y treaty, convention, or law, atTords similar privileges to the citizens of the Fnited States an application for registration of the same trademark, shall l»e accorded the same force and efTect as would l)e accorded to the same api^lication if filed in this country on the date on which application for registration of the same trademark was first filed in such foreign country: l'rori, it shall be deemed sufficient to serve notice ui)on the ;ipj)licajit, ri^gistrant, or rep- resentative, by leaving a coi)y of the process or notice of pro- eeediuL's achlressed to him at the last adikess of which the Com- mi.ssioner of Patents has been notified. Art of May I. lilOC. h.t. 2. :?0. A trademark may. at the ojition of the ai>[ilicaiit, be reg- istered on a single ajjplication, for any or all goods comi)rised in a single cla.ss of merchandise, provided the particular descrip- tion of goods be stated, and provided that tlie mark has been TRADKMAHK ACT OF FKHRrAUY 20, 1005. HOfj actually used upon all of tlie goods specified. (See classifica- tion of mcrcliaridisc, AiJpciidix J, post.) Act of Feb. 20, 11)05, sec. 2; Act of Fe!). 18, 1005), sec. 2. 31. The applifntion must bo accompanied by a written declar- ation, vcrilit'd hy the applicant, or by a nu'inl)or of the firm, Of by an officer of the corporation or as.s(M'ia1ion apply inf^r, to the effect tbat be believes bimself, or the firm, corporation, or association in whose behalf he makes the declaration, to be the owner of the trademark souf,dit to be registered, and that no other person, firm, cori)oration, or association, to the Ix-st of his knowledge and l)elief, has the right to use the trademark in the United States, either in the identical form or any such near resemblance thereto as might be cabMdated to deceive; that such trademark is used in commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, or with Indian tribes; that the descrip- tion and drawing truly represent the trademark sought to be registered; that the specimens (or fnC'similcs) show the niark as actually u.sed u[)on the goods; and that the facts set forth in the statement are true. (See Rule 17 and Forms 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11, pp 612, 613, 61-4, 615, 616, and 617.) Act' of Fol). 18, 1911. 32. Wliere application is made under see. 5 of the Act of February 20, 1905, on the ground that the mark has been in actual and exclusive use as a trademark by the applicant, or his predecessors from whom he derived title, for 10 years next preceding February 20, 1905, the applicant shall, in addition to the requirements of sec. 2 of said act, make oath to such actual use of the mark as a trademark by himself or his pred- ecessors, or by those from whom title to the same is derived, for the period specified, and that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, such use has been exclusive. (See Form 8, p. 615.) Act of Feb. 20, 1905, sec. 2. 33. If the applicant resides or is located in a foreign country, the declaration required, unless the application be presented under the provisions of sec. 3 of the Act of 'May 4. 1906. shall also set forth that the trademark has been registered by the applicant, or that an application for the registration thereof 596 API'ENDIX E. has 1)0011 filed by him in tho foroipii country in wliiolj ho resides or is located, and shall ^rive the (hite of such n-iristration. or of thf application thi-rcfor. as the case may he. lii such casj'.s it shall not he necessary to state that the mark has been used in eoimueree with tlie I'nited States or anion-: the states thereof. Act of Muy 4, 1000, mc. H. If the applieation be presented under the provisions of see. '^ of the Aet of May 4, 1906. the declaration, in atUlition to the re(|uirenients of Kule 'M, nuist state that the ajiplicant has a nian- ufacturinp establishment within the territory of the United States and that the poods upon \vhieli the trademark is used are the product of such establishment. Act of Fcl>. 20, 1905, 80c. 2. :U. Tile deelaration may *be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths, or, when the applicant resides in a foreiprn country, before any minister, charge d'affaires, consul, or commercial apent hold- ing commission under the Oovernment of the United States, or before any notary public, .iudge, or magistrate having an official seal and authorized to administer oath.s in the foreign country' in whicli the applicant may be, whose autliority sliall be proved by the certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, tlie declaration being attested in all cases, in this and other countries, liy the proper official seal of the officer before wliom the same is made, except that no acknowl- edgment may lie taken before any attorney appearing in the ease. When the person before whom tlie declaration is made is not provided with a seal, his official character shall lie estab- lished by competent evidence, as by a certificate of a clerk of a court of record, or other proper officer having a seal. 35. Amendment of the declaration will not be permitted. If that filed with the ai)[)lication be faulty or defective, a sub- stitute declaration must be filed. DRAWINO. 36. (1) The drawing must be made upon pure wliite paper of a thickness corresponding to two-sheet Bristol board. Tlie surface of the paper must be calendered and smooth. India ink alone must be used, to secure perfectly black and solid lines. TK,\i)i;.\i \i{K' \<"r OK I'lMiur vwv 20, ]'.H)7\. 597 (2) The s'y/.v of a slice! on uliidi a drawiii'; is made luusl be exactly 10 by 15 inches. One inch Irom its edf^&s a sinjifle niar- f^inal line is to he drawn, leaving the "sij^ht" j)re><;isely H by 13 inches. Within this niarj^in all work and si^^natures iinist l)e included. One of the shorter sides of the sheet is regarded as its top, and, nieasurin«^ downwardly from the mar<,'inal line, a space of not less than 1 ' /'i inches is to he left blank for the headinf^ of title, name, nuinhcr, and date. (See specimen draw- ing:, P- (>!•'• > (3) All drawinj?s must be made with the pen only. Every line and letter, signatures included, must be ah.solutely black. This direction applies to all lines, however fine, and to shadiuf^. All lines nnist be clean, sharp, and solid, and they must not be too fine or crowded. Surface shading, when used, should be open. Act of Fi'1). 20, mOf), sec. 1; Act of Vvh. 18, 1909, sec. 1. (4) The name of the proprietor of the trademark, signed by himself or by his attorney of record, must be placed at the lower right-hand corner of the sheet within the marginal lines, but in no instance should it encroach upon the drawing. (5) When the view is longer than tlie width of the sheet, the sheet should be turned on its side and the heading should be placed at the right and the signature at the left, occupying the same space and position as in an upright view and being horizontal when the sheet is held in an upright position. (6) Drawings transmitted to the office should be sent flat, protected by a sheet of heavy l)indcr's board, or should be rolled for transmission in a suitable mailing tube. They should never be folded. (7) An agent's or attorney's stamp, or advertisement, or written address will not be permitted upon the face of a draw- ing, within or without the marginal line. 37. The office, at the request of applicants, \nll furnish the drawings at cost. EXAMINATIOX OF .APPLICATIONS. Act of Fd). 20. 1905, sec. fi. 38. All complete applications for registration are considered, in the first instance, by the Examiner in charge of Trademarks. Whenever, on examination of an applicatioii. registration is 598 .vprENPix E. refused for any reason wiiatcvor, tlio applii-anl will he notified thereof. 'I'lu' reasons for sueli refusal will be stated, and sueli information and rel't-renees will he fiiven as may he useful in aiding' the applieant to judge of the propriety of further pros- ecuting: his application. []9. The e.\aniin;ition of an application and the action thereon will be directed throughout to the nu'rit.s, hut in each letter the Examiner shall state or refer to all his objections. Act of Fob. 20, !!)().-), see. (J. 40. If, on examination of an application for the repristration of a tradenuirk. it sliall appear that tlie applicant is entitled to have his trademark registered under the i)rovisions of the law, the mark will he published in the Oflficial Gazette at least once. Such publication shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of registration. If no notice of opposition be filed within thirty days after such publication, the applicant or his attorney will be duly notified of the allowance of his application, and a certificate of regis- tration will be issued as provided in Rule 58. The weekly issue closes on Thursday, and the rertificates of registration of that issue bear date as of the fourth Tuesday thereafter. AMENDMENTS. 41. The statement may be amended to correct informalities, or to avoid objections made by tlie office, or for other reasons arising in the course of examination, but no amehdments to the description or drawing of the trademark will be permitted unless warranted by soiiu'thiug in the spetiimens {or fac-b'iuiilcs) as originally filed. 42. In every amendment the exact word or words to be stricken out or inserted in the statement must be speeified and the pre- cise point indicated where the erasure or insertion is to be made. All such amendments must he on sheets of paper separate from the papers p^e^'^ously filed, and written on but onn side of the paper. Erasures, additions, insertions, or mutilations of the papers and records must not be made by the applicant or attorney. 43. When an amendatorv clause is amended, it nnist be wholly re-written, so that no interlineation or erasure shall appear iii TRADEMAUK ACT OF FKHKf AUY 20, 1005. 5f)!) the clauso. as finally amended, when the application Ls passed to issue. If the number or nature of the amendments shall render it otherwise difficult to consider the case, or to arrange the [)ap(irs for printing or copying, the Examiner may require the entire statement to be re-written. 44. After allowance, the Examiner will exercise jurisdictiftM over an application only by special authority from the Commis- sioner. Amendments may be made after the allowance of an appli- cation, if the case has not been printed, on the recommendation of the Examiner, approved by the Commissioner, without with- drawing the case from issue. 45. After the completion of the application, the office will not return the papers for any purpose whatever. If the appli- cant has not preserved copies of the papers which he wishes to amend, the office will furnish them on the usual terms. 45a. If an applicant fail to prosecute his application within one year prior to November 1, 1911, or for one year after the date when the last official notice of any action by the office was mailed to him, the api)lioation will be held tp be abandoned, as set forth in Kule 57a. 45b. "Whenever action npon an application is suspended upon request of an applicant and whenever an applicant has been called upon to put his application in condition for interference, the period of one year running against such application shall be considered as beginning at the date of the last official action preceding such actions. 45c. Acknowledgment of the filing of an application is an official action. Suspensions will only be granted for good and sufficient cause and for a reasonaWe time specified. 45d. Only one suspension will be granted by the Examiner of Trademark'^. Any further suspension must be approved by the Commissioner. INTERFERENCE, OPPOSITION, AND CANCELLATION. 46. Whenever application is made for the registration of a trademark which is substantially identical with a trademark appropriated to goods of the same descriptive properties, for which a certificate of reeistration hMS been previously issued to another, or for registration of which another had previously 600 APPKxnix E. maile application, or whioh so noarly rosomhlos suoh trademark, or a known tradoinark o\vno(l and used by another, as, in the opinion of the C'oiniuissioner, to he likely to he mistaken there- for l)y the piihlic, an interference will he declared. The practice in trademark interferences will follow, as nearly as i>racti('al)le. tlie practice in interferences between apjilieations for patents. 47. Before the declaration of interference, all preliminary questions must have been settled by the Examiner in charge of Trademarks, and the trademark which is to form the subject- matter of the controversy mu.st have been decided to "be reg- istrable, and nnist have been published at lea.st once in the Official Gazette of the Patent Office. "Whenever two or more applicants are found to be claiming substantially the same registrable trademark, and the applica- tion of one of the applicants is ready for publieatiou. the Exam- iner in charge of Trademarks may re(piire th(^ other ai)p!icants to put their applications in condition for publication within a time specified, in order that an interference may be declared. If any party fail to put his application in condition for publica- tion ^vithin the time specified, the declaration of interference will not be delayed, but after final judgment the application of .such party will be held for revision and restriction, subject to interference with other applications or registered trademarks. 48. The Examiner in charcre of Interferences may. either before or in his final decision in an interference or opposition, direct the attention of the Commissioner to any matter which may have come to his notice which can not be acted upon by him, which in his opinion precludes a proper determination of ques- tions raised by the proceeding, or which amounts to a statu- tory- "bar to resristration of the mark to any or all of the parties. The Tommissioner may. before iudirment, suspend the inter- ference or opposition nnd remand the same to the Examiner in charge of Trademarks for his consideration of the mntters to which attention has lieen directed. If the ca.se be not so re- manded, the Examiner in chartro of Trademarks will, jifter juilcr- rnent. consider any matter affecting riirht to r(>'_ristratiy law and sIimII l)e verified by tlu' person lilintj: the same hid'ore one of the ollicers mentioned in sec. 2 of the Act of February *J0. IDO.'). An op|)osition may be fded by a duly authorized attorney, but such opposition shall be null aud void unless duly verified by the opposcr, within a reasonable time after sucli filinji. A duplicate copy of the notice of o|)position must be filed, cither with the notice of opposition or within a reasonable time after the filiiifj: of the same. Act of Fcl.. 20, ion.-), spc. i:!. 7^'2. Any person, deeming himself to be injured by the regis- tration of a trademark in the Patent OfTice, may, at any time, make application (see Form 13, p. G18) to the Commissioner to cancel the registration thereof. Such application shall be filed in duplicate, shall state the grounds for cancellation, and shall be verified by the person filing the same, before one of the officers mentioned in sec. 2 of the Act of February 20, 1905. (See Rule 34.) Act of F.-1.. -20. 100.-). SIT. l.l. 53. If it shall appear, after a hearing liefore the Examiner 01 Interferences, tlint the regi.strant was not entitled to the use of the mark at the date of his application . for registration thereof, or that the mark is not used by the registrant, or has been abandoned, and the Examiner in charge of Interferences shall so decide, tlie Commissioner shall cancel the registration of the mark, unless appeal 1)e taken within the limit fixed. 54. In cases of oppasition, and of applications for cancella- tions, the Examiner in charge of Trademarks shall forward the files nnd papers to the Examiner in cliarge of Interferences, who shall give notice thereof to tlie applicant or registrant. The applicant or registrant mnst make answer at such time, not less than 30 days from the date of the notice, as shall he fixed by the Examiner in charge of Interferences. 55. The proceedincrs. on oppositions, and on applications for eaner-llntion. .shall follow, as nearly as practicable, the prac- tice in interferences U'tween aj)plications for patents. TKADEMAHK ACT OJ-' KKHKfAKV l!0, IDUo. 003 APPEALS. 56. Ever>' applicant whose mark lias 1)0(mi twifo rofiisod reg- istration by tlie Examiner of Trademarks lor the same reasons, upon grounds involving tlie merits of the application, may appeal to the Commissioner in person upon payment of tiie fee required by law. Such refusal may be considered by the Exanv- iuer of Trademarks as final. There must have been two i-efusals to register tlie inark as originally filed, or, if amended in matter of substance, the amended mark, and, except in cases of division, all preliminary and intermediate questions relating to matters not affecting the merits of the application must have been settled before the case can be appealed to the Commissioner. Upon receiving a petition stating concisely and clearly any proper question which has been acted upon by the Examiner in charge of Trademarks and which does not involve the merits of the trademark claimed, the refusal of registration of the trade- mark, or a requirement for division, and also stating the facts involved and the point or points* to be reviewed, an order will be made fixing a time for hearing such petition by the Com- missioner, and directing the Examiner to furnish a written state- ment of the grounds of his decision upon the matters averred in such petition within five days after being notified of the order fixing the day of hearing. The Examiner shall, at the time of making such statement, furnish a copy thereof to the peti- tioner. No fee is required for such a petition. Act of Feb. 20, 1905, sec. 0. 57. From the adverse decision of the Commissioner of Pat- ents upon the right of an applicant to register a trademark, or from the decision of the Commissioner in cases of interfer- ence, opposition, or cancellation, an appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals of the District of Colu«ibia in the manner prescribed by the rules of that court. ABANDONED APPLICATIONS. 57a. An abandoned trademark application is one which has not been prosecuted within one year prior to November 1, 1911, or completed and prepared for examination within one year after the filing of the petition, or which the applicant has failed 604 APPENDIX E. to proscciito uitliin one year iifftT any actinji tlioroiii of wliich notii'o lias birii duly given or which tlu' applicant has expressly alwuuionecl by tiling in the oflice a written declaration of aban- donment, signed liy himself and a> last olTieial action, or rcfusid to admit the same, ami any jiroceedings relative thereto, shall not operate to save the application from abandonment. nTc. liefore an application abandoned by failure to complete or proswute can lie revived a.s a pending application it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the dtlay in the pro.'jecution of the same was unavoidable. r)7d. When a new ai)i)lication is filed in place of an aban- doned or rejected application, a new petition, statement, declar- ation, drawing and fee will be required. ISSUE, DATE. AND DURATION OF CERTIFICATE. Act of FH). 20, 100.-.. src. 11. 58. When the requirements of the law and of the rules have been complied with, and the oflfice has adjudged a trademark registrable, a certificate will be issued, signed by the Commis- .sioner, under the seal of the Patent Office, to the effect that the applicant has complied with the law and that he is entitled to registration of his trademark. The certificate shall state tjie date on which the application for registration was received in the Patent OfTice. Attached to the certificate will be a photo- lithographed copy of the drawing of the trademark and a printed copy of the statement and of the declaration. Act (.f Vrh. '20. 100.-.. H.T. 12. 50. A certificate of registration shall remain in force 20 years from its date, except that, in case a trademark l)e previously registered in a foreign country, such certificate shall cejLse to be in foree on the day on which the trademarl< ceases to be pro- te<'ted in such foreign country, arnl .shall in no case remain in force more than 20 years unless renewed. TBADKMAUK ACT OF KKBUU;VJ{Y 20, 1905. 605 Act of Fcl). 20, 190.'), BocH. 12 and 11. 60. A certificate of re^stration may be, from time to time, renewed for like period.s on payment of tlie renewal fetw required, ui)on re(|uest by the re^strant, his legal representatives, or transferees of record in the Patent Offiee, and such request may l>e made at any time not more than six months prior to the expiration of the period for which the certificate of reg- istration was issued or renewed. Act of Fcl). 20, 100r», see. 12. 61. Certificates of regristration in force on tli'c 1st day of April, 1905, shall remain in force for the periods for whieli they were issued, and shall be renewable on the same con- ditions and for the same periods as certificates issued under the provisions of the Act of February 20, 1905, and, when so renewed, shall have the same force and effect a.s certificates issued thereunder. Act of Fcl). 20, 100.', sec. 4. 62. A certificate of registration s^iall not be issued to an appli- cant located in a foreign country for any trademark, for reg- istration of which he ha.s filed an application in such foreign country, until such mark has been actually registered by him in the country in which he is located. ASSIGNMENTS. Act of Feb. 20, 100.-), sec. 10. 63. Every registered trademark and every mark for the re^* istration of which application has been made, together with the application for registration thereof, shall be assignable in connection with the goodwill of the lousiness in which the mark is used. Such assignment must be by an instrument in wTiting and duly acknowledged according to the la\A-^ of the country or state in Avhich the same is executed. Provision is made for recording such assignments in the Patent Office; but no such assignment xnW be recorded unless it is in the English language, nor unless an application for the registration of the mark shall have been first filed in the Patent Office, and such assignment must identify the application by serial number and date of 606 APPENDIX K. filing, or. wlion tlu' mark has hcoii rc^MstonMl. hy tlio certifi- cate numbor niul tlu- ilafr thoivof. No partiiMilar ronii of a.ssi^Mi- mt'Ht is pri'siTilxtl. Act <.f Vrh. 20, mor), Bc-c. 10. 64. An nssipnniont shall be void as against any subsequent purcliasor for a vaiuabli* consideration, without notice, unless it be riH'orded in the Patent Oflico within three months from the date thereof. Art of Toh. 20. mOf), flee. It. 65. The certificate of registration may he issued to the assignee of the applicant, but the assigument must first be entered of record in the Patent Office. COPIES AND PUBLICATIONS. Act of Fd). 20. 100'), 80C8. 11 and 14. 66. After a trademark lias been re^stered, printed copies of the statement and declaration in each cast, with a photo- lithofrraphcMl copy of the drawing of the trademark, may be furnished by the office upon the payment of the fee. (See Rule 69.) 67. An order for a copy of an assigiunent must give the liber and page of the record, as well as tlie name of the applicant; otherwi.se an extra charge will bo made for the time consumed in making a search for such assignment. 68. The Official Gazette of the Patent Office will (Miitain a list of all trademarks registered, giving, in each case, a state- ment of the goods to which the trademark is applied, the name and address of the airplicant. the date of filing and .serial number of the application, and the date of the publication of the trade- mark in the Official Gazette. FEES. On filing; inch ori^rimil npplirntion for ropistration of n trii.00 ¥oT manuscript copies, for every 100 wordtj or fraction thereof.. .10 For rc'cordinj^ every asHignment, power of attorney, or otlier j)aper of 300 worda or under 1 . 00 Of over 300 and under 1,000 worda 2.00 And for eadi additional tliousand wordn or fraction thereof. 1.00 For ahwtracts of title: For the searcii, one hour or less, and certificate 1 .00 Each additional liour or fraction tliereof .50 For encli brief from the Tnent in excess, or when not n'(|uiretl l)y law, or hy ncjrlert or misinfor- ination on the part of the oflii-e, will he rerundetl ; hut a mere thaiii:i' of pnrpo.se aftt r the payment of money, as wlien a party desires to withdraw his application for the repistration of a trath'mark. or to withdraw an ai)peal. will not entitle a party to demand such a nturn. NOTICE OF REGISTRATION. Act of Feb. 20. lOO.!. wc. 28. 7;^ It shall Ih' tlie (hity of the re^strant to give notice to the public that a trademark is registered, either by affixing thereon the words "Rep:istered in U. S. Patent Office," or "Keg. U. S. Pat. Olf.," or, when from the character and size of the trade- mark, or'from its manner of attachment to the article to which it is appropriatt^l, this can not be done, then by affixing a la1)el containing a like notice to the package or receptacle wherein the article or articles are inclased; otherwise, on a suit for infringe- ment, no damages shall be recovered except on proof that the defendajit was duly notified of infringement, and continued the same after such notice. AMKNDMENTS OK THE RUI-ES. 74. All amciidiiients of the foregoing rules will be published in the Official Gazette. qi:i->;tion.s not si'ECIKicaij-y ri{Ovini:n for. 75. All cases not specifically defined and provided for in these rules will he decided in accordance with the merits of each ca.se under the authority of the roinniissioncr, and such decision will be coriuiiunicatcd to the interested parties in writing. Thomas Ewino, Cnttnnissioner of Patents. The foregoing rules were approved October 1 i, V^^1, by the .Secretar\' of the Interior. TKADK.MAUK \CT OK FKBKIAKY 'J(l, lUO'j. 009 KKCUKUIMi IKADKMAKKS WITH COLMOCTOKS OF CUSTOMS. Tkeasuky Dki'AUT.mknt, Stpttiiilur 7, 1009. To Collectors of Customs mid Otlirrs Coiiccriicd : The attention of oriiccrs of the (Mistoiiis and otlicrs is invited to the following provisions of sec. 27 of the Act approved February 20, 1905, effective Ai)nl 1, i:t(>5: Sirtioii "27. 'I'liat in> articl.' i>f iiM|>niti'(l Micnhiiiulisi' wliicli hIuiII cdpy or Himiiliitc till- iiariif of any doincHtii; inamifactJin-, or mariufaitun-r or trader, or of any nianufaitiinr ()r trader located in any fon-i;,'n country which, l»y treaty, convention, or hiw alFords Himilar privih-^^'es to citizena of the United States, or wliidi ahall copy or simulate a trademark reg- istered in accordance witli the provisions of this act, or shall b«'ar a name or mark calculated to induce the puldic to believe that tlie article is manufactured in tlie United States, or that it is manufactured in any foreijjn country or locality other than tin- country or locality in which it is in fact manufactured, aliall he admitted to entry at any custom- house of the United States; and. in order to aid the oflicers of the cus- toms in enforcing this prohibition, any domestic manufacturer or trader, and any foreign manufacturer or trader, who i.s entitled under the pro- vision of a treaty, convention, declaration, or agreement between the United States and any foreign country to the advantages afTorded by law to citizens of the United States in respect to trademarks and com- mercial names, may require liis name and residence, and the name of the locality in wliich his goods are manufactured, and a copy of the certifi- cate of registration of his trademark, issued in accordance with the provisions of this act, to be recorded in books whicli shall be kept for this purpose in the Department of the Treasury, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, and may furnish to the department facsimiles of h.is name, the name of the locality in which his goods are manufactured, or of his registered trademark; and there- upon the Secretary of tiie Treasury shall cause one or more copies of the same to be transmitted to each collector or other proper ofhcer of customs. The provision.s of this .section give to manufacturers and traders located in foreign countries, which, by treaty stipula- tions, give .similar privileges to the United States, the same advantages as are griven to domestic manufacturers and traders.'. The act does not affect names or trademarks heretofore recorded in the Treasury Department, and as to tliem the prote«tion granted so far as conceriis prohibition of importation vdU continue. Nor does the act appear to make it compulsory' on the part of domestic manufacturers or traders, or foreign GIO Ai*i'ENi>ix i:. manufacturers or traders, to rt'pistor names (not trademarks) » witli the (Commissioner of I'atents, in order to previ-iit illegal importations. Domestic manufaeturcrs ;iiul traders and foreign manu- faeturi-r.s ami tnulcrs, to avail thcnusi'lves of the privileges of tlie act. so far as i-oiumtiis trademnrks. arc rccpiircd to register their trailemarks witli the Commis^sioner of Patent-s before the Treasury Department can act. Applications for recording the names and tradetnarks in this department under sec. 21 will state the name of the owner, his residence, and the locality in wliicli his poods are manufactured, and in the case of trademarks sliould l)e accomimnied with a certified copy of the certifit-ate of registration of his trademark issued in accordance with the provisions of the act and the names of the ports to which far-niyniJrs should be .sent. In the ca.si' of the name of a domestic manufacture, manufacturer, or trader (not registered as a trademark in the Patent Office), the applica- tion must be accompanied by the proper proof of ownership and proof as to the country or locality in whicli his goods arfe manufactured, which must consist of the affidavit of the owner or one of the owners, certified by an officer entitled to ailminister oaths and having a seal. On the receipt by a customs officer of any such fdr-simUes, with infonnation from the department that they have l>een recorded therein, he will properly record and file them and will exercise care to prevent the entry at the customhouse of any article of foreign manufacture copying or simulating such mark. No fees are charged for recording trademarks in the Treasury Department and custondiouses. A sufficient nund)er of fac-sfinnlrs should be forwarded to enable the department to send one copy to each port named in the a{)[)lication, with ten additional copies for the files of the department. Especial attention is invited to the provision in .said section prohibiting the entry of articles "which shall bear a name or mark calodated to induce the public to believe that the article is manufactured in the I'nited States, or that it is manufacttired in any foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which it is in fact manufactured." and collectors TRADKMARK ACT OK FEBRUARY 20, 1905. tradt-niark lias In m c-dntinunuslv used in niv liusim-ss (and in the biisinrsH of my prrdcfcssor, ), [twmi- of pndn rssor, if any; if appli- cant has had no pndvtcssors, omit this (lausi] sincr [rarlieat date of uar]. Tho tradiniark is aiiplird »»r adixiil to tin- ;,'oods, or to tlu- packaj^cs containing; the sann-. by jdacinjj tluTcon a printed laliel on which the tradi-mark is shown \'>r state other mode or iiiodis of applirntion]. laiyuaturc of applicant : fust name must In- yiicn in full]. (3) DECLARATION FOi: AN INDIXIDIAL. State of , County of , ss: , [name of applicant] liein;.' duly .sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant named in the fore<,'oinfj statement; that he ladievea the fore^oin;: statement is true; that he believe!* himself to be the owner of the trademark sou;,'lit to be ri'<,'istered ; that no other person, firm, cor[)oration, or association, to the best of his knowh-d^e and belief, has the right to use said trademark in the United States, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thert-to as might he calc\i- lated to deceive; that said trademark is used by him in commerce among the several states of the United States (and hctween the United States and fort«ign nations or Indian tribes, and particularly with ) ; {names of foreign coxnitries or Indian tribes; if appli | for , [partirulor ilisiription of goods] in claHH No. ]numljir and title of class — SVC classillcation]. Tile trademark lias been coiitinuouHly used in our husineHS (any phicing tiiereon a printed hil)el on wiiich the trademark is shown lor state other mode or modes of application]. [Firm name]. By , [Signature of a mcmhcr of the firm.] A Member of the Firm. (5) DECLARATION FOR A FIRM. State of , County of , ss: , [name of a/ftanl'] being chily sworn, deposes and says tiiat lie is a member of the firm, the applicant named in the foregoing statement; that lie believes the foregoing statement is true; that he lielieves said firm is the owner of the trademark sought to be registered; that no other person, firm, corporation, or association, to the best of his knowledge and belief, has the right to use said trademark in the United States, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as might be calculated to deceive; that said trademark is used by said firm in com- merce among the several states of the United States (and between the United States and foreign nations or Indian tril)es, and particularly with ) ; [names of foreign countries or Indian trihcs ; if applicant does not have commerce tcith foreign nations or Indian tribes, this clause should be omittedl that the description and drawing presented truly represent the trademark sought to be registered; and that the specimens [or fac- similes] show the trademark as actually used upon the goods. [Signature of affiant]. Subscribed and sworn to before me, , [official title] this [datt of execution]. [L. S.J , [Official title.] CH APPENDIX E. (0) STAir.MF.M" K(iK A lOUPOllATIOX OH ASSOCIATION. To all irhom it mn-y («f uhieh organized] and locatrd in , [loca- tion of corporation] and (U)inf,' busim-HH at • , [busimss address] has adopted and usrd tho trathniark uliown in tin' aiiompanyinj,' drawing [sec rule 2J/»| for , [particular description of (foods] in I'laHS No. [uuiulnr ami title of class — see classification]. Thf trademark has been continuously uscc eaHicst date of use]. The trademark is applied or afllxed to the jroods, or to the packapes containing,' tlie same, by jilacin^' thereon a printed lal)el on which the trademark is shown [or state other mode or modes of application]. [\ame of applicant.l [Signature of officer — official title.} (7) DECLARATION FOR A (ORrORATinX OK ASSOCIATION. State of , County of , ss: , [name of afTiaui] hv\x\ till" aj)])licant is a firm, corporation, or association, the decla- ration should be modified accordingly.] State of , County of , ss: , [name of applicant] being duly sworn, deposes and says that lie is the aiiplicant named in the foregoing statement; that be believes tlie foregoing statement is true; that he believes liimself to be the owner of the mark sought to be registered; that no other person, firm, corpo- ration, or association, to the best of his knowledge and belief, lias the right to use said mark in the United States, either in the identical form or in any such near reseml)lance thereto as might i)e calculated to deceive; that said mark is used by him in commerce among the several states of the United States (and between the United States and foreign nations, or Indian tribes, and ))articularly with ) ; [names of foreign .nations or Indian tribes ; if applicant docs not have commerce irith foreign nations or Indian trihcs, tJiis clause should he omitted'] that the description and drawing presented truly represent the mark souglit to be registered ; that the specimens or fticsimilcs] show the mark as actually used upon the goods; and that the mark has been in actual use as a trademark of the applicant (and applicant's predecessors from whom title was derived) [if applicant has had no predecessors, this clause should be omitted} for ten years next preceding February 20, lOO/i, and that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, such use has been exclusive. [Signature of affiant.'] Subscribed and sworn to before me, a , [official title] this [date of execution], [L. 8.] . [Official titl€.] G16 APPEN'niX E. (Hi i)i:i[..\i;.\i loN i(»i; i'(>ki:i<:ni:i;.* United fitatrs Ct>uitul(ttc, London, Hngltiud. h»: , [iKimc ()/ affiatil] lii-in;,' ,' Htatrmciit ; tlmt hi- l>i«HcV('» tlu> fori'jioiii;; t»tat«-nirn( is (ru<-; tliat lu- Im-Hcvch himself tu !"• tlic ownt-r of till- traih-mark bou;,'lit to lu' n-^iihti-ntl ; tliat no other person, lirm, rorpo- ratioii, or assttiiation, to the hest of his kno\vh"(l;;e and heliif, ha8 the rijrht to U!M' said tra«hnuirk in tlie I'nited States, i-itlier in tiie identical form or in any sncii near resemhhinee tlieret<) as ini;;lit Im- eaU-nlati'd to dccoive; (tluit said trach-mark lias Iteen ref^istered in , \namc of count;/] on . |f/fi/«] No. 1; Inumhrr of rrgintration ; if the tradtmark hns not t/rt hcvn rcgiHtmil, hut tni application for rvgistration has hrcn fiUd in thr countr;/ irhcrc applicant resides or is located, this clause shouhl he omitted and the follouing substituted therefor: "'that an application for rt gistration of said trademark uas filed h;f him on the . (date of fiiinji) in (name of country 1]: tliat the description and drawin;; presented truly represent the trademark soujrht to he regis- tered; and that tlie specimens [or facsimiles} sliow the trademark as actually used upon the {,'ood3. ISigtHifurc of affiant.] Suhscrihed and sworn to hefore me, a , {official till< \ tliis \date of execution]. [Seal.l . [Official title.] (10) STATEMENT FOR AN IXniVIDUAL UNDKU SECTION 3 OP TIIE ACT OF MAY 4, lOOfi. fin case applicant he a firm, corporation, or association, the statement should he modified accordingly. 1 To all i/hom it may concern: Be it known that T, , [name of applicant] a , \citizenship of applicant] residin;; at , [applicant's residence] and doing husi- yjpfig at , [business address] and having; a mamifacturinj: estah- lisliment at , [location of business] have adojited and used the trademark shown in the acconipanyin;,' r allixifl t<> the ^^mmmIs. <.r to tli.- |.a<-kaj,'«-H cuntainin;^ tlic Kami-, liy plueinj^ tlicn-on a i>riiit<'.y . \»nnir of applir,i„t] .J , [location or rcaiihncc of applicant] wI.hIi whs piiMislu-d om pun.- Vol _^ Xo. _, [page, volume ami vumlicr] of tin- OlVuiiil Cii/.rtto i>f ' [date of the Official (iasvttc\ 1, , [name of party opposing] residinj? at , [residence or location of party opposmg] l.i-liovr I would Ik- dumnp-a «.y such rc^iBtration aiul I lur.l.y ^'iv.- lu.tici' of my intention to «>i)poK«' tin- n-Kistrntion of nnid tradtninrk. Tlu' firoundH for opponition aro as follows: ]hcrc state the grounds for opposing registration]. Stati' of , IStynnture of opposing parti/.] County of , »»• On this , \(f(itc of CTCcution] l.i-for.' mc. a , [official title] in and for County. State of . personally appeared . [name of party opposing] who. l.ein^' l>y me duly sworn \or affirmed], deposes and says tliat lie has read the forejroing notice of oi)poBition, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowl- vdffv, except as to tlie matters therein stated on infornmtion and h.-lief. and as to those matters he believes it to be true. [L. S.] ' [Official title.] (13> APPLTCATIOX FOR CANCELLATION OF TKADKMAKK. [If the party apply inG, Code, 189G, an act relating to the unauthor- ized use or (lef'acenient of the l)ottles, siphons, kegs, etc., of nianufai-turers, bottlers and venders of soda water and other beverages. Act of .March 1. II'DI. An iict for tlic protection of labels of labor unions. ALASKA. Cartt-r's Aiinotatid -Alaska (' IS. Section' 84. Knowingly I'sing or Counterfeiting Trademarks, etc. That if any pn-soii shall wilfully and knowingly use or cause to be used any j)rivate brand, lal)el, stamp, or trademark of another, either by counterfeiting the same or iLsing any impression, or copy thereof made or prepared by the proprietor tliereof, (tr shall wilfully and kiiowiiiLdy use or c;iuse to be used any colorable imitation of such brand, label, stamp, or trade- mark, with intent to deceive any one, such person, upon convic- tion thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not le.ss than one month nor more than six months, or by fine not less than twenty nor more than three hundred dollars. ARIZONA. REVI.SF.D STATl'TK.'^. 101:1 — PKNAI- COPE. Title 9. CirAPncR XII. .s.-c. .Tir.; p. r. 10(11 Section 357. Every such association, union or corporation that h?is heretofore adopt<>d. or shall hereafter adopt, a label, traileiiiark or form of advertisement, as aforesaid, shall file the r.20 AKKANSAS STATI'TKS. G'J 1 same in the ofiicc of tlw Secretary of State by leaving two copies, eoiiiiteipiiits or fac-siniiles thereof, with the Secretary of State. Said Seeretary shall deliver to such eori)oratioii, asso- ciation or union so filing,' tlie same, a duly attested certifieat*; of the record ol" the same, for which he shall receive a fee of three dollars; such certificate of record shall in all suits and prosecutions under this chapter he sufficient proof of the adop- tion of such lahel, trademark, or form of advertisement, and of the ri.udit of said union, eor])oration or association to adoi)t the same. Si'C. :n!t; V. ('. l!Mll. It shall he the duty of the Secretary of State to .see that all associations, unions or corporations enjoyin<>: the henefits of lahels, trademarks, or forms of advertisements herein descrihed shall comply with the provisions of this section in all respects. Fees of Secretary of State, .t-'^OO for the certificate, plus 25 cents for filing. ARKANSAS. Section. KEGISTRATTOX OF TRADEMARKS. TiMiO. I'rutfction in use of, how fi(>ciirpd. 70()1. Declaration under oath of party claiming. 70(52. Secretary of State not to record name unaccomi)ani(d hy marks distinguishal)le from others. 7!Mi.3. Copies of trademark, etc., under seal of Secn-tarv of State, may he used as evidence. 7004. Trademarks to remain in force twenty-five years; exception. 7965. Penalty for violating trademark. 7066. No action allowed to protect trademark used in unlawful husincas or ohtained hy fraud, etc. 70(i7. Persons ohtaining trademark hy fraud liahle for damages. 7068. Construction of act. 7060. For hottles, boxes, siphons, etc.. liow ohtained. Fee of clerk. 7070. T'nlawful for persons other than owner to fill hottles or deface mark. 7071. Or to have in possession, sell or destroy hottles, etc. 7072. Penalties for violation of act. 707.'?. Searcli warrant may he issued for. Party having arrested. 7074. Purduiser of contents to return hottles, casks, etc. 7075. Fines collected to go to general revenue fund of county. Section 1960. Any person or firm in this state, or any of the United States or territories thereof, and any eorporatio'i created by the authority of this state, or the United States or 622 APPKNDIX F. any of the states or tiTritorirs tlicivof, iiiid any porson. firm or eorpoiation, resilient, or loeuteil in any foreign country, whieh, by treaty or convention, alTords similar privile^'es to citizens of tlie rniteil States, ami who may be entitled to the exclusive use of any lawful trademark or device, or who may intend to adopt and use any trademark or device for exclusive use in this state, may obtain protection for such lawful trade- mark or device by compiyin'; with the following' re(piisitcs and rccpiiremeiits: Pirst — By making out and tiling in the oHice of the Secretary of StAte of this state, to l)c there registered or recorded, a state- ment specifying the names of the parties and their residence and i)lace of business who desire the protection of the trade- mark, the class of merchandise, and p;irtieiilar description of goods comprised in such class, by which or to which the trade- mark has been or is intended to be appropriated; a description of the trademark itsi'lf or device, or combination of words, letters or figures or characters used or intended to be used as such, and the mode in which it has been or is intended to be applied and used, and the length of tinu', if any. during which the trademark has i)een in use. Second — By making payment to the Secretary of State, for the use of the state, of a fee of not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, to be detenu ined by the Secre- tary according to a schedule of fees arranged with reference to the number of words, figures, characters, etc.. contained in such .statement, which schedule it is made the duty of the Seeretar>' to make and keep posted up in his office. Section TOCl. The certificate prescribed in the preceding section nuist, in order to create any right whatever in favor of the party filing it, be accompanied liy a written declaration, verified by the person or by some meml)er of the lirm or officer of the corporation by whom it is filed, to the elTect tluit the party claiming the protection for the trademark has a right to the use of the same, and that no other person, firm or corporation has the right to such u.se, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as mi^ht be calculated to deceive, and that the fnc-siwilrs presented for record are true copies of the trademark sought to be protected. ARKANSAS STATUTES. 623 Skction Titfi'J. Tlir Sci'i-ctiifv shall not receive and rccurd any proposed trademark wliieli is not and can not become a lawl'ul trademark, or wliieli is merely tlie naiiK; of a person, linn or eoriioi'at ion, iinai'ri)mpanie(l liy a mark suflii-ieiit to «> calculated to deceive, luis heen printed, painted, stamped, woven, hraiuled or in any maimer put or placed, i'or tiic purpose of putting; up. shipping;, scUintr. or otherwise disposinjj of sub- stantially the s;ime description of poods as those to which the same has been apjiropriatcd Ity the party ri<. and tlu' act of so filinpr and cnnsinR it to Ih> rtTonli'd l)y tho county i-lork, and puhlisliinfr, shall (>i)orate as a trademark, sfcnrini,' to the siiid nianulai'turiT the rull pro- tection of tlic law as a trademark, entitlinjj tlie said ninnu- factiirer to the sole ami exclusive »ise in the state of Arkansas of said marks, name or device. The county clerk shall receive for his services for so recording, one dollar to Ik? paid hy party havin},' such record nuidc. Section 7070. It is horcliy declared unlawful for any persons, corporate or otherwise, other than the proprietor, or hy his written consent, to till for tlio purpose of traffic, or for sale, with any compouiui uhalcvcr. any box, sijihon, hottlc or otiier container so marked, recorded in the oflice of the county clerk and published as aforesaid, or to deface, erase, ol)literate, cover uj) or otherwise remove or cancel any su<'h mark or device. Section 71^71. To have in ]iosses.sion otherwise than l)y con- tract with the proprietor of the poods herein enumerated, or with his duly accredited apent.s. of any of the vessels herein enumeratccl. or to use, buy, sell or dispose of any such vessels with or without contents of any kind, except by authority from the proprietor, or to wilfully or maliciously break, damage, mar, injure or destroy any such vessel, is declared hereby to constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine upon conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction, an emj)loye being equally liable with the |)rincipal so olTendin^'. Section 71)72. Any person violatinp any of the provisions of thus act shall he deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, aiul upon con- viction before a justice of the peace shall be fined for such unlawful use of each and ever>' box, five dollars; for each and ever>' siphon, five dollars; for each and every l)ottle, one dollar; and for everv otlier receptacl(\ except a fountain, five dollars; and for each fountain, twenty-five dollars. The fines so desig- nated to be the minimum in each case, the maxinuini not to exceerl doid)le the mininuim. Section 7073. r'rf>secutions uikIct the [irovisioji.s of this net may be inaintained ui)on the information of the owiier or pro- j)rietor of any of the vessels or confairie?'s mentioned ht>rein ARKANSAS STATUTES. G27 or of his a^ciit, iiiadr uiidtT oafli hct'orc a justice of tlio peace ()!• any other ofheer having' the same jiirisdictioii, setting forth that lie has j^'ood reason (o believe and does iMjlieve that another j)ei-son than llie rij,ditrid owner, without lawful authority is usinj^ ()!• has used any of such vessels or receptacles contrary to the ])i'ovisions of this act. Upon filinj; of sueh information the justice of the peace or any other officer havintr the same jurisdiction shall issue his search warrant and cause the same to he executed by a (pialified officer upon the- premises to he designated hy the i)ersons makincr tlu; eomi)laint, and if the said officer, actinir under the said search warrant, shall discover any of such property as herein specified, he shall at once arrest the party named in such warrant and hrinf? him ])efore the justice of the peace, who shall proceed at once to hear and determine sueh ease, and if the accused he found «ruilty he shall he fined as provided in sec. 7972. Section 7074. Any merchant or dealer purcha-sini? g^oods contained in such registered retainers paying only for the con- tents thereof, shall be liable for the value of said retainers, and .shall, when demanded, return to the owner thereof all such containers when empty, or within a reasonable time after the goods have been delivered. If containers are demanded hefore empty hy the owner thereof, he shall refund the price received for the contents thereof. Section 7975. All moneys collected as fine or penalty under the provisions of this act, shall l)e returned by the constahle unto the county treasurer to become a part of the general county revenue fund. Act April 20, 1895. TRADE^IARK APPLICATTOX. STATK OF ARKANSAS. To the Secrctar;/ of fitatr: fSworn application accompanying,' a trademark and label.] Be it known, that has horotoforo adopted and used a certain trademark and laliel and herewith files the same for record in the ofilce of tlio S(>eretary of State l>y leavin;; two copies, counterparts or fac-simile3 thereof with said Secretary, and hy filinji therewith this sworn appli- cation. (VJ8 APPENDIX F. (I) Till- nnnio «>f tin- person so (ilin;,' »\\v\\ Innlrinark luul lalnl is (2) TIh" iliiss of iiurrluiiiclim- upon wliii-h tin- Minn- lias lut-ii usi-d ih , and a jiarticiilar dcsfriptioii of tlir j:ooi1m i-ouipriH*'*! in sucli claiM is (3) Said trademark ami lalnl, as Iuti' shown, lias Ihcii used l.y apjili cant Hinct' . (4) Said tradtmark and laliil is as fi>llo\vs: , tho (>HBi-ntiul ft-ature »(f which . By Stat»- of — C'-<)untv of I, , lioinj: first duly Bworn, doposo and say that T am of th«' njiplioant herein, and make this alVidavit and verification in hehalf. That I have read the above and forej^oinji application and know the contents thereof, and that the facts set out therein are true; that said so filinj,' said trademark and lal>el has the ri^^ht to the use of the same and that no other person, firm, association, union, corporation or ori' filed in duplicate.) CALIFORNIA. TRADEMARK I-AWS OF CAI.irOKNI.V — POLITICAL CODE. Section SlOfi. The plirase "trademark" as used in thi.s chapter iiicliidt's every deseriptimi of word, letter, device, eiidtlem, staiiii). iin[)riiit. f)rinted tieket, lahe!, or wrapper usually affixed hy any iiieelianie. inanufaeturer, driiprprist. inereliaiit or tradesniaii. to denote any jroods to he proods iinportecl. inann- faetnred, i)rodin*ed. eoiiij)ounded or sold hy him, other than any name, wonl. or expression prenerally denoting any poods to be of some partienlar class or description, and also any name or names, marks or devices, branded, stamped, enprraviMl, etched, CAMKOKNIA STATL'TICS. 'i-!> blown, or otherwise att11.] Section '.V2(H). Any ti-.nlc union. h'i])()r association, or lahor or- description of '.»ord, letter, device, emhlem. stamp, imprint, brand, printed ticket, label, or wrapper, usually affixed by any mechanic, manufacturer, drugrgist, merchant, or tradesman, to denote any floods to be •roods im7X)rted. manufactured, produced, coiupouinled. or sold by him, other than any name, word, or expression p-enerally denotinjr any .] Skctiox '.]')A'y^. Kvei'v pccson who sli;ill uiil'iilly deface, erase, obliterate, cover up, or otherwise remove, destroy, or conceal the duly filed trademark or name of another, printed, branded, stamped, enjrraved, etched, blown, impressed, or other- wise attached to. or produced upon any cask, keg, bottle, vessel, siplion. can, case, or othei- ipackafre, for the i)urpose of selling or trafficking in such cask, keg, bottle, vessel, siphon, can, case, or other package, or refilling such cask, keg, bottle, vessel, siphon, can, case, or other package, with intent to defraud the owner thereof, witliout the consent of the owner, or unless the same shall have been purchased from the owner, is guilty of a mis- demeanor. [Approved ^larch 3. 1899.] AX ACT to protect the owners of bottles, boxes, siplions, and kegs used in the sale of soda waters, mineral or aerated waters, porter, ale, cider, ginper ale, milk, cream, small beer, lager beer, weiss beer, l)eer, white beer, or other beverages. (Api>roved March .SI, ISOl ; as amended, approve<^ "Marcli "), 100.*?.) The people of the State of CaJifornia, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Any and all persons engaged in manufacturing, bottling, or selling soda waters, mineral or aerated waters, porter, ale, beer, cider, ginger ale. milk, cream, small beer, lager beer, weiss beer, white beer, or other beverages in bottles, siphons, or kegs, with his. her. its, or their name or names, or other marks or devices, branded, stamped, engraved, etched, and lilown, impressed, or otherwise produced npon such bottles, siphons, or kegs, or the boxes used by him, her, it, or them, may file in the oflSce of the clerk of the count v in which his, her. or their (l.rt AriM:N'Pix F. priin'ipal plnco of business is situated, and also in tlio office of tlu' Secretary of State, a ilescription of tlic name or names, marks or ilevices. so useil by him. Iicr, it, or lliciii, respectively, anil cause such dj'scri|)ti()M to l»e printed once in each week for three weeks successively, in a newspai)er pul)lishe (li-sposin? of. or trafTfiick- ing in of an>- such )»ottles, 'boxes, siphons, or kegs, by any person other than said persons or corporations, having a name, mark, or device thereon, or such owner, without such written consent, or the having by any junK-dealer. or dealer in .second- liand articles, possession of any such bottles, boxes, siphons, or kegs, a description of the marks, name.s, or devices wherein shall have been so filed ami published as aforesaid, without such written consent, shall and is hereliy declared to be pre- sumptive evidence of the said unlawful u.se, purchase, or traffic in of such bottles, boxes, siphons, or kegs. Section 4. AVlienever any person, or poi-sons, or corporations, mentioned in section one of this act, or his, her, its, or their agent, .shall make oatli before any magistrate that he, she, or it has reason to believe, and does believe, that any of his, her, or their bottles, boxes, siphons, or kegs, a description of the names, marks, or devices whereon has been so filed and pub- lished, as aforesaid, are being unlawfuljy used or filled, or had by any person or corporation manufacturing or selling soda, mineral or aerated waters, porter, ale, cider, ginger ale, milk, cream, small l)eer, lager beer, weiss beer, white beer, and other beverages, or that any junk-dealer, or dealer in secondhand articles, vendor of bottles, or any other person or corporation, has any such bottles, boxes, siphons, or kegs, in his, her, or its possession or secreted in any place, the said magistrate mu.st thereupon issue a search Avarrant to discover and obtain the same, and may also cause to be brought before him the person in whose possession such bottles, boxes, siphons, or kegs may be found, and then inquire into the circumstances of such possession ; and if said magistrate finds that sucb p«rson has been guilty of a violation of section two of this act, he must G;k) APPENDIX F. impose tho puiiLshiiuMit therein presfriltcd. and In- sliall nlso award possession of the property taken nj)on such search warrant to the owner thereof. Sfctidn .'). The recpiirinj;. lakinir <>r aereptinj; of any deposit for any pnrpose. upon any hotth\ l»o.\. siplion. or kejr shall not he deemed or eonstitute a saU» of sinh pioperty. either o|)tional or otliervvi.se. in any proceeding' umhr this act. [Aniendinent approved March a. IDO,}.! Skction (). Any jx-rson or persons, c()rporati(tn or corpora- tions, that ha.s or have heretofore fih'd in the oflices mentioned in section one of tliis act. a (h>seription of the name or names, niark-s. or devices, npon his. her. their, or its property therein mentioned, and hjus caused the .same to ))e pnhlished aceordinj^ to the hnvs e.xistinjr at tlie time of such filiu'^' and publication shall not he re(|uired to nfrain file and i)ul)lisli such descri[)tion to he entitled to the l)enefits of tliis aet : and an.v person or persons, corporation or corporations, havinpr complied with the pro- vision.s of this act may as a part of the sale, assijrninent or transfer of all his. her. their or its said hottles. boxes, siphons, or keps. used as aforesaid, wit'ti hi \ her. tlieir or its name or names or other marks or devices, h.'anded. stamped, enpraved, etched, and lilown, impressed or otherwise produce upon such hottles, boxes, siphons and keijs, to any other person or persons, enrporation or corporations. cnGrafred in manufacturing, bottlinpr, or selline soda waters, mineral or aerated waters, porter, ale. beer, cider, prinfrer ale. milk, cream, small beer, laper beer, weias beer, white beer or otber beverajres. sell, assicm. and transfer the sole and exclusive ripht of nsiner said name or names, marks and devices in said bu.siness. And in the event of such sale, transfer or assijrnment as aforesaid, or in tlie event of the transfer by operation of law or by sale under order of any court of the entire business of such person or persons, corpora- tion or corporations, nr of tlie entin* stock of bottles, boxes, siphons or ketrs belonirintr to them. him. her or it. to any person or persons, corporation or corporations, euiracred in mainifac- tnrinp. l)ottlincr or sellinpr soda waters, mineral or aerated waters, port*'r. ale. l>cer. cider, pinL'cr ale. milk, cream, small beer, laper beer, weiss beer, white beer or other beverages, such CAM I "OH MA STATCTKS. G!J7 j)er.soii or persons, corporation or corporations, shall not he a^ain nMjuirt'il to Hh* and publish a description of said name or names, marks or devices, hereunder, l)ut shall he entitled to all the benefits of this act innnediately upon acquiring such Iwttles, siphons or kepi or such business as aforesaid. [Amendment approved March f,, 1 !)().*}.] Skction 7. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are for the purjjose of this act hereby repealed. [l{<.'-nunibercd ; approved March 5, 1!)03.] C.VSES DKCIDKD HV TIIK SII'KEME COIKT OF CALIFORNIA RELATIVE TO USE, PROTECTION, ETC., OF TRADEMARKS. Definition and o}>j< identical form or in any .such near rcsemhlance thereto as may he calculated to d<'ceive and that the fac-.s'innir or counterparts tiled tlnrf\vitli ari' true and correct. There .shall he paid for such filing and recording a fee of one dollar. Said Secretary shall deliver to such person. as.sociation or union so filing or causing to he filed any such lahcl. trademark, term, design, device or form of advert iscMiuMit. so many duly attested certificates of the recording of tlie same as such person, association or union may apply for. for each of which certificates said Secretary shall receive a fee of one dollar. Any such certificate of record shall in all suits and prasecutions under this act he sufficient proof of the adoption of such label, trade- mark, term, design, device or form of advertisement. Said Secretan- of State shall not record for any person, union or association any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement that would probably be mistaken for any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement there- tofore filed by or on behalf of any other person, union or asjsociation. Rut the said Secretary shall file and record under this act any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement, which may have been previously filed by any person, or any association or union of workingmen. provided the person, a.ssociation or union seeking to file and record under this act is the same peiNon. association or union that previously filed or recorded the .same lalicl. trademark, tcnii. design, device or form of advertisement. Skction 4. Any person who shall for himself or on behalf of any other person, association or union procure the filing of any label, trademark, term, design, or form of advertisement in the office of the Secretary of State under the provisions of this act, by making any false or fraudulent representations, or declarations, verbally or in writing, or by any fraudulent means, .shall bo liable to pay any damages sustained in consenuence of any such filing, to bo recovered by or on behalf of the party injured thereby in any court having jurisdiction and shall be COLORADO STATITTKS. 641 ])uiiish('(l hy a 'iiic not exceeding five Imiidrccl dollars ($500) or hy iiiipi-isomiiciit not exceeding' llir' of State of Colorable pives the following: XoTK'E — In makin;; yotir ai>plication for Trademark, it is imjiortant that you furnish this ofliee with two counterparts or far sim-ilcs of Label or Trac desired, it will Iw necessary for you to forward as many additional counterparts or fac-timilra of Laltol or Trademark as co[»ies n-fpiired. CONNECTicnrr sTATrTi->;. G4:j CONNECTICUT. General Statut«'H, Hcvinion of 1002. Section 4899. Recokd ok certificate. Every person entitled to the exclusive um) of any tradiMimrU, or who intends to adopt and use any trademark not previously adopted or used by another, may file for record in 11h' office of the Secretary of State a certificate setting,' I'ortli : iiis name, residence and place of business; the class of merchandise, and the i)articidar descrip- tion of poods comprised in such class, to which such trademark has ])een or is to be ai)pn)i)riated ; a descrijjtion of such trade- mark, and of the mode in whicli it is to be applied and used; the date when such trady siK-h intcrvfiitioii. Skction 4nO'J. KpFKrT of kkcoudini;. I-'vcry pti-soii haviiif; tlir ri^'lit to make and file siicli a cert iticatc and atlidavit. upon the n-cordinj; of tlir same in said otlicc. shall ho cntitlcij to tlu? I'Xclusivc usr of tlu' trademark therein desei-ihcd for so ion^' as lie or his assiirns shall eontiniie to Ite eii^'aired in the inannfaeture or sale of the merchandise or description of i:o<»ds to which it is appropriated; and such riirht shall he assignable in writiiip, but all assi<.Miments thereof shall be <:oo;<' similar in descriptive properties to those to whicli such trath-- mark is appropriatiMl : or who fraudnh-ntly and with intent to deceive jdaces in any receptaeh' or packajre to wliidi is lawfully affixed a recorded trademark, poods other than those wliich said trademark is desi<_Mied and appropriated to protect; or who fraudulently and with intent to deceive, deals in or keeps for sale any jjoods with ;i trademark fraudulently affixed as ahove descrihed in this section, or any proods contained in any package or receptacle havinjr a lawful tJ'ademark, which are not such jjoods as such trademark was designed and af)|)ropriated to protect, shall he fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or hoth. DEVICES ox ROTTLEP. CANS, JARS. SU'IIONS, TOWELS, COATS, APPIONS, AND TOILET CABINETS. (As amended liy Chapter 208. Pul.lie Acts of mil.) Section 1. Description may be filed. Sec. 4013 of the general statutes as amended hy eh. 115 of the public acts of 1903 is hereby amended to read as follows : Any person engagred in manufacturing, bottling, or selling soda waters, mineral or aerated waters, porter, ale, beer, cider, ginger ale. milk, cream, small beer, lager beer, wei.ss beer, white beer, or other beverages, or medicines, medical preparations, perfumerv, oils, compounds, or mixtures in bottles, cans, jars, or siphons, with his name or other marks or devices branded, .stamped, engraved, etched, blown, impressed, or otber\dse produced upon such bottles, cans, jars, siphons or th'^ boxes used by him. or any person eniraged in the business of snpplyincr towels, coats, aprons, or toilet cabinets to others, for hire or compensation, with his name or other marks or devices brnnded. stamped, marked, sewed, or otherwise impressed thereon, mav file in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the countv in which his principal place of business is .situated, or if such place of business .shall be situated out of the stnte. then in any county in the state, and also in the office of the ?5ecretar\' of ?!tate. a description of the name or names, marks, or devices so used by him, and may G4G APrKNPix F. onuso such ilescription to l>o print<»il oiu-o in ouch wvck, for three weeks suooeJisivtly. in a iu'W.spapor published iu the county in which such notice has l)oen fiU'd as aforesaid. Suction 2. rNi.AWFUi. isk ok dkvicks: pkxai.ty. Sec. 4914 of the jieneral statutes ns anienc. A9)'.^ and amendments thereof, or shall deface, erase, obliterate, cover up. or otherwise remove or conceal any such name. mark, or device thereon, or shall sell. b\iy. jrive. take, or otherwise^ dispose of or traffic in the same, without the written consent of the jierson whose mark or dcnice .shall be or shall have been in or upon the bottle, can. j,ir. ]>ox. or si[ihon so filled, trafficked in. used, or handled as aforesaid, or whose name, mark, or device shall be or shall have been upon the towel, coat, apron, or toilet cabinet so unlawfully used, except that the u.se of such towels, coats, aprons, and toih^t ca))inets, at the places where the .same are supplied or delivered liy tiie owner, utxh^r an ajjree- ment with or lease or licetise from such owner, sliall not be unlawfid. Every j)erson, actinj; for himself or as the agent of any person, firm, or corporation, who shall violate any pro- vision of this section shall, for the first ofTense be fined not more than fifty cents for each sucli bottle, can. jar, box. sii)hon. towel, coat, apron, or toilet cabinet so filled, sold. used, supplied, disposed of. bou<:ht, or trafficked in. or impri.soned not more than thirty days, or lioth ; and for each subsequent ofTense shall be fined not more than one dollar for each such bottle, can. jar, box, siphon, towel, coat, or apron, or toilet cabinet so filled, sold, used, supplied, disposed of, bought, or trafficked in, or imprisoned not more than one vear or both. CONNECTICUT STATUTES. 647 Section :}. Pimisimption ok unlawful use. Sec. 4015 of thr ^'-'rifi-Jil stiiliitfs, -IS aiiiciKli'd l)y ehaptrr 11.") of the Pulilic Acts of I'JOiJ, is luTchy amcmkHl to read as follows: The use by any person other than llie person whwo deviee, name, or mark shall lie or shall have heen upon the same, without such written consent or purchase a.s aforesaid, of any such marked or dis- tin^'uished hollle, can, jar. liox, or siphon, a descrii)tion of the name, mark, or device whereon shall have been filed and pub- lished as provided in see. 4!)i:J and amendments thereof for the sale therein of soda waters, mineral or aerated waters, porter, ale, cider, gingrer ale, milk, cream, beer, small beer, lager beer, weiss beer, wliite l)eer, or other beverage, or any article or mer- chandise, medicine, medical preparation, perfumery, oil, com- pound, mixture, or preparation, or for the furnishing of such or similar beverages to customers, or the use, by any person other than the owner whose name, mark, or device shall have been upon the same and those exempt l)y tlie proviso of sec. 4!)14 as amended, of any such marked or distinguished towel, coat, or apron, or toilet cabinet, a description of the name, mark, or device whereon shall have been filed and published as provided in said sec. 4!)1."? as amended, or the buying, selling, or dis- pasing of, or trafficking in any such Iwttles, cans, jai-s. boxes, siphons, towels, coats, aprons, or toilet cabinets by any person other than the person having a name, mark, or device as such owner thereon without such written consent, or the possession by any junk dealer, or dealer in rags or second-hand articles, or person engaged in the business of supplying or renting tow- els, aprons, coats, or toilet cabinets, of any such bottles, cans, jars, boxes, or siphons, whether whole or broken, or any such marked or distinguished towel, cont. or apron, or toilet cabinet, a description of the marks, names, or devices whereon shall have l)een so filed and published a.s aforesaid, without such written consent, shall be pre.sumptive evidence of such unlawful uses, l>urchase, and traffic in such bottles, cans, jars, boxes, siphons, towels, coats, aprons or toilet cabinets. Section 4. Issuanck of search warrants. Sec. 4016 of ^he general statutes, as amended by chapter 115 of the Public Acts of 1903 and chapter 48 of the Public Acts of 1005, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Wlienever any person mentioned C4S APrKNDlX F. in sec. 4*.U3 aiul aiMondinents thereof, or his a^'cnt. shall makf oath iH'fore nuy justice of the peace or the jml^'c of any city, boroujrh. town, or police court within tlie town, that \u' has rciuion to iK'lieve and does lielieve tlial amy of his hottles. cans, jars, boxes or siphons, a (U-scription of the names, marks, or drvices whereon luis hcen so (iU'il aMr uidawfully used or lille»l or had within the jurisdiction of such justice of the peace, or such court, hy any person manu- faeturinp or selling soda, mineral or aerated waters, porter, ale, cider, jrinfrer ah*, milk, cream, snudl heer. la^er heer, weiss beer, or other beverage, or medical preparations, perfumery, oils, compounds, or mixtures, or tlwit any junk dealer or dealer in second-hand articles, vmdor of bottles, cans, jars, or siphons, or other person has. within such jurisdiction, any such bottles, cans. jaiN. boxes, or siphons in his possession or secreted in any place, or that any of his towels, coats, aprons, or toilet cabinets a description of the names, marks or devices whereon has l)een filed and published as aforesaid, are being unlawfully used or lield within the juristliction of such justice of the peace or such court, said justice of the peace or court shall, if sufficient reason be shown therefor, issue forthwith a search warrant, tlirected to any police officer or other proper officer, to discover and obtain the same; and said justice of the jjcace or (Appruv.d, AiiyiiHt 1\. 1!»11.) Section 41)18. Ri;iii-ino of otrviCE not requirkd. Any per- son, lirni, <)!• corporation tliat lia.s filed in the oflkM; mentioned iix see. 4'.'r{ a di'scription of the name or nanifs, mark, or devices ui)on his or its property, therein mentioned, and has caused the same to he piihiishcd .iccordiii^' lo Ih.- law existing at the time of such lilin^; and imlilieation, sliall, if no sale of any article of such property so marked has he.-n made hy such owner, not be required ajjain to file and puhlish sucli description to he en- titled to the ])enefits of sees. 4913, 41114, 4915 and 4916. General Statutes, 1902. KOKM Foil APPLICATION I\)U PvKGISTUATION. Knoio all men hij these preiienta: That , ri'sidin^' in the town of , county of , and State of , and liaving place of husiness in and engaged in the and sale of , ha— adopted the followin;; trademark, to Ix- api)lied hy lahel, or hy en},'raving, or stamping said trademark upon said {.'oods or the packages containing them, or in adver- tising the same. (Here insert trademark if possilile, and send extra copies for record and certified copies, or accurately describe.) And further certify that said trademark was first used l)y on or about the day of , A. D. lO— , and tiiat • have the exclusive right to the use of the same. State of , County of ss: -, m— . Personally appeared. , and made oath to the trutli of the fore- going certificate, Ix'fore me, yotnri/ Puhlir. Justice of the Peace. DELAWARE. Chapter GOO, ^'olume 10, Laws of Delaware. [Page r).32. Code of 1893]. AN ACT to protect associations and unions of workingmen and persons in their labels, trademarks an that prob- ably wfddd fbe] mistaken for a label already filed. Section 4. Every such person. a«i<=:ociation or union ndoptinp a label, tr.ideniark or form of advertisement, as aforesaid, may proceed by suit to euioin the mapufacture. use. displav. or SJile f)f anv such counterfeits or imitatin»is. and all courts hnvincr jurisdietion thereof shall crant iniupctions to restrain such manufacture, use. displnv. or sale, and shall award the com- plainant in Kuch .suit such damap«3, re.^lltinff from such ^vTong- I>i:i.AA-AUi: STATUTES. C)')\ ful iiianufactiiiv, use, display or sale as may l>y said court ])<'. deeniocl jusl and rcas()iial>l(', and shall rci|iiirc the dcd'cndanfs to |iay to siU'ii person, association or union the j»i-ofits il<.*rivt' pn)Vt'(l hovoixl a rt'asonahli' tloiiUt. State v. Hoifd (,Del.), 95 Atl. Hop. 2.12. lliapttT ;»L'. vol. U;. L.ius of Di'luwan- (I'oik" 18;»:{, p. 551), rt'latt's to tlu' protection of iiiamifacturiTs and vendors of min- eral water, porter, ale, or other l)everaj;es a^rainst the unauthor- ized use of or injury to their hottles. Chapter 'J'J«;. p. iXK of the Laws of Delaware of 1S1»S-1S!»!), n-lales to the pnfteetion of any lahor or^'ani/ation in the adop- tion ami u.si- of a lahi-l or seal. FOKM (»!•■ AI'l'LU ATI«>N rllo\vin>i is a de8crij>titin : This trad<-mark consists of The followinji is a copy, far-simile or coiintrrpurt of tlie said trade- mark, tu-wit: The class and particular description of }:oods to wliicli tlie said trade- mark has liecn and is intended to lie appropriated is . The said trademark has lieen ctmtinuously used in the husiness of j-aid corporation since ai)out the day of . The said trademark is usually applied hy means of labels or by stamp- in-.' or jirintin;,' it upon the packages containing the goods. State of - I'ountv of , heing duly sworn, says that he is , of the corporation, the applicant named in the foregoing statement; that he verily iMdieves that the foregoing statement is true; that the said corporation at this time has the right to tlie use of the trademark therein prescrihed; that no otluT person, firm, association or corjioration has the right to hiieli iis<', either in the identical form or in any sui-li near reseml)lance lliereto as may he calculated to deceive; and that t!w description and copy, far nimilr or counterjiart filed tlier"<'!»li truly represent the trad«»- mark Miught to he registered. .1 iiii.I -n..rti t.. l>.f..r.- ni.- tills dav of , A. D. 10 — . iNeuI] yotani I'uhlir. l'I.ni:ll)\ STVTI TKS. i>')'i I'LOIMDA. CliaijtiT 4!)74— (No. 110). AN ACT to authorize any pcrKon, iiHuociution or uiiitm of workiiij^'iinii to adopt and iihi' a lalxl or tradi-mark, to i)r<»t<'ct tin- Bantu? Ky law, to provide for itH n-cord, to pn-vi-nt (•oiiritiTfcifm^' tin- Hami', or un'infT till' ori^'iiial or any packap- containinf,' tin- Kami-; and to prevent usinj^ tlic name or wal tliereof without aiitliurily, and fixing j)enaltie8 for violationH tlu-reof. Be it enacted by the Legislature of tlir Siair of Florida: Section 1. Whenever any person or any association or union of \v()rkin{,'ni('n has herotolorc adopted (»r usod, or shall here- after a(loi»t or use. and lias Hied as hereiiuifter provided, any label, tradeniarU. term, wordiiif;, desi^'n, device, color or fonn of advertisement for the purpose of desi^iating, making known, or distinguishing any goods, wares, merchandise or other product of lahor. as having been made, manufactured, produced, pre- pared, ])acked or put on sale by such person or association or union of workingmen, or by a member or members of .':uch asso- ciation or union, it shall be unlawful to counterfeit or imitate such label, tradenuirk, term, wording, design, device, color or form of advertisements, or knowingly to use, sell, offer for sale, or in any other way utter or circulate any counterfeit, or imita- tion of any such label, trademark, term, wording, design, device, color or form of advertisement. Section 2. ^Yhoever counterfeits or imitates aiiy such label, trademark, term, wording, design, device, color or form of adver- tisement, or knowingly sells, offers for sale, or in any way utters or circulates any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, trademark, term, wording, design, device, color or form of adver- tisement : or knowingly purchases and keeps or ha.s in his posses- sion, with intent that the same shall Ik? sold or disposed of. any goods, wares, merchandise or other product of labor to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is printed, painted, stamped or impressed: or knowingly purchases with intent to sell or dispose of any goods, wares, merchandise or other product of labor contained in any box, ca.se, can or package to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, painted, stamped or impressed; or having knomngly r..V4 APPENDIX F. imrfhnscd. koops or has in his possession, with intent that the sanu' shall he sold or tlisposetl of. any jjoods. wares, merchandise or other product of labor in any 1h)X. ease, ean or |»ac'Ua^'e. to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, painted, stamped or impressed, shall he pun- ished by a line <»f not more than five liuiidred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more tlian three months. Section 'A. Every such person. as.sociation or union that has heretofore adopted or u.sed. or shall hereafter adopt or use, a lal>ol. trademark, term, wordinp, desipn, device, color or form of advertisement as provided in section 1 of this net. may file the same for record in the office of Secretary of State by leaving two coi>ics, cuuntcrparts or fac-similcs thereof, with said Secre- tary, and by filing: therewith a sworn application specifying the name or names of the person, as.soeiation or union on whose behalf such laJ)el, tradcTuark. term, wordinfr. design, device, color or form of advertisement shidl be filed, the class of mer- chandise and a description of the nroods to which it has been or is intended to be appropriated, statin? tliat the party so filing or on whose behalf such label, trndemnrk. term, wording, design, de\'ice. color or form nf ndvertisement .sliall he filed, has the right to the use of the same, th.it no other person, firm. as.so- eiation. union or corporation ha« the riglit to use either in the identical form or in any such near resemhlance thereto as may be calcidated to deceive, and that the facsimile or counterparts filed therewith are true and correct. There shall be paid for such filincr and recordintr a fee of two dollars. Said Secretary shall deliver to such person, associa- tion or union so filing or causiuL' to he filed anv such label, trademark, term, wordincr. desicm. device, color or form of adver- tisement so many duly attested certificates of the recordinrr of the same as such person, association or union may applv for, for each of which the Secretar>' shall receive a fee of one dollar. Any such certificate of record shall, in all suits and prosec\itions under this act. be sufficient proof of the adoption of such label, trademark, term, wording, design, device, color or form of adver- tisement. Said Secretary of Stat^ shall not record for any person, union or association any label, trademark, term, wordincr, flesign, device, color or form of advertisement that would prob- FI.OKIDA STATl'TKS. (>•>•) ably 1)0 mistaken for any lalid. tradoinark, torm, wording, de-. sij^n, device, color or ioriii of ailvcrtiscinciit heretofore filed hy or on Ix'half of any other person, union or association. Section \. Any jirrson who shall, lor liiinself or on hi^half of any othei' person, association or union |iiocuit the liini^' ol any label, trademark, term, wordinfr, design, dcivice, color or form of advertisement in the oflice of the Secretary of State, under the provisions of this act. iiy making any false or fraudu- lent representations or declaration, verbally or in writiufr. or by any fraudulent means, shall be liable to pay any damages sus- tained in eon.sequenee of such filing, to be recovered by or on behalf of thi> party injured thereby, 'n any court having juris- diction, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hun- dred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months. Section r>. Every such person, association or union a(b)i)ting or using a label, trademark, term, wording, design, device, color or form of advertisement as aforesaid, may proceed by suit to en.ioin the mainifacture. use. display, or sale of any counterfeits or imitations thereof, and all courts of competent jurisdiction shall grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use, dis- play or sale, and may award the complainant in any such suit damages resulting from any such manufacture, use, sale or display, as may be by the said court deemed just and reason- able, and shall require the defendants to pay such person, asso- ciation or union nil profits derived from such wrongful manu- facture, use. display or sale : and such court shall also order that all such counterfeits or imitations in the possession or under the control of any defendant in such cause he delivered to an oflficer of the court, or to the complainants, to he destroyed. Septton fi. Every person who shall use or display the genuine label, trademark, term, wording, design, device, color or form of advertisement of any such person, association or union in any manner, not being authorized so to do hy such person, union or as.sociation. shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. a"d shall he punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or hy a fine of not more than five hundred dollars. In all cases where such association or union is not incoi*po- rated, suits under this act may be commenced and prasecuted 656 Al'I'KNIHX K. liy an oOlciT or nu'inluT of such nssiH-iation or union r authorizetl to use the same, shall he pnilty of a misde- meanor, an'l shall he pnnishahle l»y iniprisonmcnl for not more than three months, or liy a fiin- of not moi'f lliau one huiulrcd dollars. Section S. Any person usintr the tratlemark so adopted anel. trademark. ti\iix k. Section '^. Kvijy siifh porson, nssocintion or union tlint has horetoforo iulopt«'«l or slmll luToaftiT adopt a lalu'l, trademark or form of advtTtisfmoiil as aforesaid, may file the same for record ill the »)fliee of the Secretary of State hy leaving three copies eomiti-rpart or fiir-simih thereof with tlie Secretary (tf State. Said Secretary shall deliver to such person, as.sociation or union so tiling' the same a duly attested certificate of the reconi of the same, for whicji he shall receive a fee of one dollar: such certificate of record shall in all suits and i)rosecu- tions under this act he suflicient proof of the adoption of such lahel. trademark or foriu of advertisement, and of the right of said person, association or union to ado|)t the same. No lahel shall he recorded tliat prohahly would he mistaken for a lahel already of record. SiX'TiDN 4. Kvery such person, association or union adopting,' a ]al>el. trademark or form of advertisement as aforesaid, nuiy proceed by suit to enjoin the nuinul'acture. use, display or sale of any such counterfeits or imitations, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunction to restrain such manu- facture, use. display or sal(\ and shall award the complainant in such suits such damages resulting from such wrongful manu- facture, use, display or sale a.s may hy said court he deemed just and reasonable, and shall rerpiire the defendant to pay to such person, as.sociation or union the profit derived from such wrongful manufacture, use, dis|)lay or sale, and such court shall also order that all counterfeits or imitations in the pos.se.ssion or under the control of any defendant in siich case he delivered to an officer of the court, or to the complainant, to be destroyed. Section 5. Every person who shall use or display the genuine label, trademark or form of adverti.sement of any such person, as.sociation or union, in any manner not authorized by .such person, as.sociation or union, knowing that such use or display Ls not authorized, with intent to deceive the public in the sale of goods, shall he decMned guilty of a misdemeanor and shall he punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars. In all cases when; such a.sso- ciations or unions are not incorjiorated. suit under this act may be commenced and prosecuted by any officer or member of such association or union on ])elialf of and for the use of such a8.sociatiou or union. IDAHO STATrTFS. OGl Section- G. Br i( furlJu r nunicl, 'I'li.il .itiy pcrsfui or porsous wlio shall ill any way use the iiaiiic or seal oi' any siicli person, association or union, or olticcr flifrcof, in and alxjut the salo of goods ()!• otiicruisc, not Ikmii^ uutliorizi-d to so use the same, knowing' that such use i.s unauthorized, with tin- intent to deceive the pnhlic in the sale of i.\ k. of, nny poods, wares, jiu>ri'hamliso or other iiroduct of lal)or to whii'h or on whiili any sui'h fonntcrfcit or imitation is printi'il, paintt'd, stanipinl or inipri'ssod ; or knowingly sells or disposes of any L'oods. wares, increliantlisi' or otiier proilnct of lal)or contaiiuMl in any box. ease, can or paekaiie. to uliidi or on whieh, any sueli counterfeit, or imitation is attached, allixed, printeil, painted, stamped or im|)ressed; or keeps or lias in his possession, with intent that the same sli.dl he sold or disposed of, any poods, wares, merchandise or other product of lahor in any box, case, can or paekape to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is attached, aflixed. printed, painted, stamped or impn'.ssed. shall he puilty of a misdemeanor and he punished hy a fine of not more than one huniiiVd dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than three months. Sectio.v 'A. lOvery such person, assfx-iat ion, or union, that has heretofore adopted or used, or shall hereafter, adopt or use, a label, trade mark, term, desipn, device or form of advertisement, as provided in .section 1 of this act. may file the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State, hy leavinp two copies, counterparts or facsimiles thereof, with said Secretary and by filinp therewith, a sworn apjilienlion specify inp the name or names of the person, association or union on whose behalf sudi label, trademark, term, desipn. device or form of advertisement shall be filed; the class of merchandise and a description of the poods to which it has been or is intended to be. appropriated, statinp that the j)arty so filinp or on whose behalf such label, trademark, desipn, device, or form of advertisement shall he filed, ha.s the ripht to the ii.«e of the same; that no other person, firm, association, union or corporation, has a ripht to such use, either in the identical form or in any such near resend)lance thereto jus may be calculateil to deceive, and that the fnr-aimilc or counterparts filed therewith are true and correct. There shalT be paid for such filinp and recordinp a fee of three dollars. Said Secretary shall deliver to such person, association, or union, so filinp or eausinp to be filed any such label, trade mark, term, desipn, device or form of advertisement, so many duly attested certificates of the recordinp of the same as such person, a.ssocia- tion or union may apply for, for each of which certificates said Secretarv shall receive a fer- of three dollars. Anv such ccrtifi- Ill V IK) ST ATI 'l' I '.S. 0G.{ calc of record sli;ill. in iill suits ami proM-ciit ions iiiidcr tliis act lif suniciciit prool' of till- adoption of sin-li lalicl, trade mark, term, desi^iii. deviee or form of advert iseiiient. Saiil Secretary of State sliall not record for any person, union, or association, any lalx-l, trademark, term. dcsi^Mi, device or form of advertise- ment tliat would prol)al)ly he mistaken for any lahei. trade mark, term. desi<:n. device, or form of advertisement theretofore filed hy, or on l)ehalf of any other person, union, or association. Section 4. Any person who shall for himself or on hehalf of any otiier person, association or union i)rocure the filing of any lahel. trade mark, term, desi^Mi or form of advertisement in the office of the Secretary of State under the provisions of this act, hy making any false or fraudulent representations or declarations, verhally or in writing? or hy any fraudulent means, shall he liahle to pay any damages sustained in consequence of any such filing, to he recovered hy, or on hehalf of the party injured thereby, in any court having jurisdiction and shall be guilty of misdemeanor, and be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollar.s, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months. Section r>. Every such person, association or union adopting or using a label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement as aforesaid may proceed by suit, to enjoin the manufacture, use, display or sale of any counterfeits or imita- tions thereof, and all courts of competent jurisdiction shall grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture and may award the complainant in any such suit, datnages resulting from such manufacture, use, sale or display, as may be by the said court, deemed just and reasonable, and shall require the defendants to pay to such persons, association, or union, all profits derived from such wrongful manufacture, use. display or sale; and such court shall also order that all such connterfeils or imitations in the possession or under the control of any defendant in such cause be delivered to an officer of the court, or to the com- plainant to be destroyed. Section G. Every person who shall use or display the genu- ine label, trade mark. term, design, device or form of advertise- ment of any such person, association or union, in any manner, 664 AIM'KNniX K. not hoiiifi nuthorizctl so to »1<» l»y siidi ixtsom. iiniou or assm-iii- tion. shall ho (UtiiumI nuilty of a iiiisdtMin'anor and sliall W pun- isheil l»y iniprisoniiu'nt for not inorr ihan tlirco montlis or by a Ihu' of not m<»r.- than oiu- luin.lr.Ml dollars (.tl(M).(Hh. In all cases where such associatuni or union is not incorporated, suits under this act may l>c commenced, and prosecuted l)y an officer or member of such association or union on l)ehalf of. ami for the use of sueh association or union. Section 7. An\ person or persons who sliall in any way use the nanu' or seal of any such jierson. association, or union or officer thereof in, and about the sale of floods or otherwise not being authorized to so use the same, shall be fjuilty of a mis- th-meanor. and shall be punishable l)y imprisonment for iu)t more than three months or l)y a line of not more than oiu> hundred dollars. (Approveil Mar.-h 12, 18!»7. As amended .March 12. 1907.) ILLINOIS. Starr 4 C. St. ISOC. \i.l. ."$. rii;:i'rt .lO'in-SOriT. AN ACT to protect associations, unions of workinfrmm and persons in their labels, trademarks and forms of advert isin;:. Par.vgrai'H fi, § 1. Whenever any person or any a.s.sociation or union of workinpmen has heretofore adopted or used or shall hereafter adopt or use any label, trademark, term, desiprn. de\ice or form of advertisement for the purpo.se of desiptuitintr. making known or distinguishing any goods, wares, merchandise or other |troduct of lalwr as having Von made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed or put on sale by such person or association or union of workingmen. or by n member or members of such aK.sociation or union, it shall bo unlawful to counterfeit or imitate such label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of advertise- ment, or to use, sell, offer for .sale, or in any way utter or cir- culate any counterfeit or imitation of any su<-h label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement. Paracjk.M'M 7. § 2. Whoever counterfeits or imitates any stich label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement, or sells, offers for sale or in any way utters, or circulates any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, trndemark, term, de- ii-ijNois sTvnTKS. 665 sifjn, (Icvici or form of ailvcrl isciiiciit, or know'mtrly iisfs any such (•((Uiilcrrtif or iinilalioii, or kiKJW iii^ly sells or disposes of or k('('|>s or has in his possession, willi intent that tlie same shall he sold or disposed of. any ^'oods, wares, niorchaiidiso or other product of lahor 1o which any such counterfeit or imitation is attached oi' aflixccl, or on w hicli any such counterfeit or imitation is printection one (1) of this act. .shall file the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State, by leaving two (2) copies, counterparts or fac-similes thereof with said Sec- retary, and by filing therewith a sworn statement specifying the name or names of the person, association or union on who.se behalf such description of the goods to which it has been or is intended to be appropriated ; that the party so filing, or on whose liehalf such label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement shall be filed, has the right to use the same, and that no oth(>r person, firm, association, union or corporation has the right to such use either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive, and that the fac-vsimile copies or counterparts filed therewith are true .ind correct. There shall be paid for such filing and recording a fee of one (1) dollar. Any person who shall for himself, or CG6 Ai'PKNmx r. on l)ohnlf of any nthcr person, nssofialioii or union, procure the filing of nny lahel. tradeinnrk, terin, design, device or form of advertisement in the oOice of the Secretary of State, under the provisions of this act hy makinu any falsi* or frauiluU'iit repre- sentations or (U'chirations. verhall\ or in writinjr. or l)y any frajidident means, shall ])e liahle to pay any danuiges sustained in conse(|uence of any such filing' to he recovered hy or on hehalf of the party injured thereliy in any court having; jurisdiction, and shall he puinshed hy a fine not exceedinf; two hundred (200) dollars or hy imprisoniiKMd not exeeeditip: one year or hotli sudi line and imprisonment. The Secretary of State sliall deliver to such person, association or union so fdiiifx or causin recordinj; of the same as such person, association or imion may ayiply for, for each of which certificates said Secretary shall receive a fee of one (1) dollar. Any such certificates of record shall in nil suits and prosecutions under tins act l)e sufficient proof of the adoption of such lal)cl. trademark, term, desifrn. device or form of advertisement. Said Secretaiy of the State sliall not record for any person, union or association any lalx'I. ti'ademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement that would reasonahly he mistaken for any lahcl. trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement theretofore filed hy or on hehalf of any other person, union or a.ssociation. (As amencknl hy Act ap- |)roved June i:i, lSf)5. In force July 1, lSi)5, L. 1895, p. 320; Legal News Ed., p. 2:V2.) I'AHA(;KAin 0, §4. Every such person, association or nnion aviopting a label, trademark, or form of advertisement, as afore- said, may proceed hy suit to enjoin the manufacture, use, dis- {)lay or sale of any such counterfeits or imitations; and all courts having jiirisdiction thereof shall grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use. display or sale, atid shall award the com- plainant in such suit, such damag(>s, resulting from such wrong- ful manufacture, use, disi>lay or sale, as may hy said court he deemed just and reas(tnahle, and shall reipiire the defendants to i)ay to such person, association or union the profits derived from such wrongful marnifacture. use, display or sale; and said court shall also order that all such counterfeits or imitations in ILIJNOIS STATl'TES 667 the possession or under the coiitr')! ol" iiiiy ilefondant in such case he delivered to an oriiri-r- of thr court, oi- to the cuMiphiinant to he destroyed. Paka(;i:ai'I1 10. § '>. Every i)erson wlio shall use or dis[)lay the ^'enuine lal»el. trademark, or form of a«lvertisement of any such |)erson. association or union, in any mainicr not aut liori/,e(l hy such person, union or association, shall he e calculiileil to cleeeive. And tliat the facsiinili- copien or (oiinlerjmrtM liled lierewitli ari' true and correct. The essential part of said . Suhscrihed and sworn to liefore ine hy tlie Haid tliiM dav of , A. 1). 111—. I Seal. I \i)t)iri/ I'uhlii Fee for riliiij,' is ^\.0{) iiiid ^1.00 adilitioiial for a crrtilicat*'. Tliroe facsimiles of the trademark should aceompauy tlie atHidavit. IXDIAXA. Burns Annotated JiKJiaiia Statute-,, l;e\ i-i..ii ol l!t(il. Skction SG81. That any lirm, person, corporation or volun- tary a.ssociation that are citizens of the state of Indiana, except foreign corporations, and who arc entitled to the exclusive use of any lawful trademark, label, l)rand, stamp or wrapper, may oi)tain protection for such lawful trademark, label, lirand, stamp or wrapper by complying' with the following requirements: First, by causing; to be filed with the Secretary of State a state- ment specifying the names of the parties, and the residences and places of business, who desire the protection of the trade- mark, label, brand, stamp or wrai)per, the class of merchandise and the particular description of goods comprised in such class, by which the trademark, lat)el, brand, stamj) or wrapper has been, or is intendetl to be protected. A description of trade- mark, label, brand, stamp or wrapper, with foe-si milr thereof, showing the mode in which it has been and is intended to be applied and used, and the length of time, if any, during which the trademark, label, hrand. .«tamp or wrapper has heen in use. Second, l)y making a payment of a fee of two dollars to the Secretary of State, whose dut.v it will be to file and record said statement in a book kept for the i)urpo.se to be procured by him as other Iwoks in his oflRce of like nature are procured. Section 8fiS2. Any certificate or statement prescribed in the preceding section nnist, in order to create any right whatever in favor of the party filing it, be accompanied by a written decla- ration yerified by the person, or some member of the firm or 670 Al'PKMMX K. officer of tho corporation nr Mtliiiilary associatioii by wlioin it is filed, to tin* rtTcft tluit tlu- party claimiiii,' the protcctifni tor tlic tradniiark. lahrl, Itraiul. stamp or wrapper, iuts a ri^ht to tho snnu>, and that no other person, lirni. corporation or volun- tary assoeiaticn has the ri^rht to sneh use either in the iJentieal form or in any .such near reseinhlanee as niinlit be ealeuhited to e prinid facie evidence of the facts and .statements and aflidavit record in any suit in which such tratle- mark. laliel, brand, stamp or wrapper shall be brought into controversy. Section 8fi84. A trademark. lal)el. bi;iiid. stamp or wrapper shall remain in force so louf? as it is used continuously; after a disuse of six months it sludl be deemed out of existence. Such tradenuirk. hiliel. brand, stamp or wrapper nuiy be sold or as- signed, or pa.ss to jiersonal representatives by will, or become assets of an estate. In any case where ownership changes of such trademark, label, brand, stamp or wrapper, before it can be used by the successor in titl(\ a statenu-nt of such change of ownership shall be filed with the Secretary of State, and he shall record the same in the book kept for the purpose of record- ing trademarks, labels, brands, stamps and wrappers, and such Secretary shall receive two dollars for recording such .statement; and it shall be unlawful to use such trademark, label, brand, stamj) or wraupcr till such change of ownership lias lieen filed as aforesaid. Skction Sds."). Such trademark, label, brand, stamp or wrap- per shall entitle tli<' person, firm. eori)oration, or voluntary a.sso- eiation registering the same to the exclusive use thereof, .so far as regards the descrii)tion of goods to which it is appropriated in the statement filed under oath as aforesaid, and no other INDIANA STATITKS. 671 ])(!i-soii, linn, (.•urjjorat ion oi' volnntai'v association i-an lawfully use till! sani(< (radcnuirk, iabi-l, hrand, stamp or uiapiMT, or sui)- stautially llif saiuc, or so nearly rfscnihlin}; it as to !)•• calculated to deceive upon substantially the same descrifjlion of jroods. Skction 8080. For a violation of any rijzlds created hy this act. the |)erson. film, corporal ion or voluntary association a^- jrrieved. shall have; all coimiion law nMiiedies and actions for daiiias, and shall Im; enlitled to an injunction to jirevent fur- ther use of any Irach'iiiark. label, brand, stamp or wrapper by tliis act secured to the injured person, linn. cori)orat ion. or vol- untary association; and. if an injunction is made iinal and per- j)(;lual, th(^ injured firm. corj)orat ion or voluntary association •shall recover reasonable attorney's fees. Skction 8087. Any owner of a trademark, label, brand, stamp or wrapper, who has complied with the provisions of this act. shall have the rid by the owner of sueh trade- mark, label, brand, stamp or wi'apper. with two witiiess(^s to such signature, and no oik^ but tlu^ owner shall hav(i the riprlit to use such trademark, label, brand, stamp or wrapi)(n'. unless such wTittcn authority has been given. Section 8688. If it becomes necessary for any voluntary as- sociation to assert any rifrlit to any trademark, label, brand, stamp or wrapper, it shall be sufficient to use th(^ name of presi- dent or chief officer of such association either in action at law. suit in equity, or indictment for the violation of the provisions of thi.s act. Section 8689. This act shall not be construed to lessen, im- pair or abridge any rights or remedies that have heretofore existed in favor of any one ow'uing or rightfully claiming a trademark, label, brand, stamp or wrapper. Section 8690. That any person or persons, who ^hall know- ingly or wilfully cast or engrave, or maiuifacture, or have in his, her or their possession, or buy. sell or ofVer for sale, or deal in any di(^ or dies, plate or plates, brand or brands, engraving or engravings on wood, stone, metal or other substances, molds or any false representations, likeness, copy or colorable imita- f,72 APPENDIX F. Hon of nnv »lii', pl;itt'. liraiul or moM ot" any private traclornark, lal>ol. hraiul, stamp. \vra|»|Mr. t'li^'raviii^' on pupt-r or other suh- stance. rcjiisteri'd and n'l-orilfd pursuant to this act. shall, upon coiivic'tioii thiTcof. hf punislu'tl hy iinprisoniiu-nt in the pcnitcii- tiar>' for not l«'.ss than one year, or niort- Hum two years, or he f'uu'il in n sum not less tlum nni' thnus.-iiul dollars, or more tiuui two tliousand dollars. Skction SlV.U. That any person or persons (wlu) shall) know- ingly and wilfully nuikt-. forcro or eounterl'eit. or have in his. Iier or their possession, or huy. sell, offer for sale or deal in any representation, likeness. similittKle. copy or eolorahle imitation •)t' any private label, hrand. stamp, wrapper, onfjravinc. mold or trademark, retristered and recorded pursuant to this act, .shall, upon eonviction thereof, he punished hy im|)risonnient in the |»enitentiary for a period of years not more than two nor less than one. or he fiiu'd in any sum not less than one thou.sand ().()0) nor more than two hiindred dollars ($200.00), or imi)risoned in the county jail six months, or both. SU'otionH Hn78-8fi80c n-latv to tli<- |ir<)t.-iti..ii <>f inaMufa*, Imt- tltTH. nnd wlli-rH :{, indnsivi-, nliitf to tin- lalx-In, namcH and HtampH of lalpor iiiiioiM iiiiil a.-s(iciiit iiiiiH. Under sec. SdSOh ail iMdictincnt which failed to ehargp the defendant tilled or caused to be filliMJ any liottle or sipiioii with i\ny li(iiiid mentioned in the a<.'t, was held to he fatally defective. State r. Writjlit, If)!) hid. :i'M, C") N. H. Hep. IDO. When, under the Act of lSf»l. pa^je '.Ul, the "(;it,'arinaker's International Tnion of Anieriea," a national labor union, regw- tered their label, the benefit of the act beinj; by its terms limite wuriU, tlio purtioiilur tlo- sfription or ilosipnntion in x»i<-li >;''"«''"al class of morchnndise. Dn not tli'scribo the i-iunposltion, or nanio tlio parts wliicli loniprisf i\w forniula of wliich the nuriliamiise iii coiuposoil; Third, by uxint; tlie followinf^ words: "Tlie eBsential feature of the (lalH'l. trademark, utamp or form of advertisement) in." f^'ivin;,' wliat is considered to he t!ie eHHential feature or ftuturcs tiiereof. If an illustra- tion or pictorial representatiim in used for ii trademark, it is very desir- able that a word or words shall also form a part of the "essential features" of such trademark; Fourth, by usinjj the foilowin;^ "ords, tluit : "Tlie style and size of type and the color of ink and j)ai)er may be varied at pleasure." • I, , do hereby declare, in accordance with tlie provisions has a rifiht to the use of the \insrrt label, tradcmarh, stamp or form of advcrtiacmvnt, as the case may be] referred to in the foregoing certificate, and that no other person, firm, association, union or corpora- tion has the right to such use, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive, and I furtiier declare tliat tlie fac-similes, copies or counterparts fib-d with the foregoing certificate are true and correct. In witness whereof, I have hereunto signed my iiaiiic tliia day of , in the year one thousand . I«S'i^n here]. County of , State of , 88 : , 19—. Then personally appeared the above-named and niadi- oath that the foregoing declaration by him subscribed is true. Before me, IOWA. Code 1807. Ch. 1.3, Tit. 24. Section 5049. Falsely using l.vbel of l.vbor itnion. Every person, or association or union of workingmen or others, thdt has adopted or shall adopt for their i)roteetion any label, trade- mark or form of advertisement may tile the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State by leaving two copies, coun- terparts or fac-similes thereof with the Secretary of State. Said Secretary shall thereupon deliver to such person, association or • If a person, insert name; if an ofTicer of an association, union or corporation, insert name, title of ollice, and name of the association, union or corporation. IOWA STATt IKR. 675 tuiioii so filing' tlic same a (liil\' atlcstcd ci-cf iliratc oi" tlif rccortl of the sanip. for which he sliall receive a tec ol' om- (hjlhir. Such eertifieate of record shall in all actions and prosi-cutions under the following' six sections he snITicient i)roof of the ay draft, express or money orders. Please do not send jxTsonal checks. Ai'iM.icAi ION Foil i;i;(;i.'r i.s iiitemUd ti> Im- a|)|ir(iiiriated for usl- ill eoiineetion with . The htyle and Hize of type and tlie eolor of ink jiiid paptT may he \aried at jileaHurc. If uued aH a hihel, or trademark, it is usually a|>i)lied hy paititiiif; or stenciling, l>y lahels, or liy formin^j on tlie material of whieli tlie jiroduct iH madi-. If, a» a form of advertising', it is used in advertisements, in news- papers, circulars, on Ittter-lieads, on invoici-s, and otiier printed mat- ter . The Miid has l)e.• consists of . KANSAS STATT'I-KS. 677 III witiU'SH wlHTcof, 1 Iiavi! liticinito hi;;iu(l iiiv iiaiiif tliiH day of A. 1). 1!»— . Xlllllc . Uy . Statf iif , County of , ss: SubHcrilii'd imd sworn to licforf iiic fliiH diiy of , A. D. 19—. STATE OF KANSAS. OFFICE OP SECRKTAKV OK STATK. Topcka, January 11, 1915. Dear Sir: Tluiro are two provisions of law under wliich IradcMnarks may be registered in Kansas, (^xtraets from wliicli follow: First. Section 9670, Chapter 119, Geiun-al Statutes of 1909, provides that "any and all persons or corporations who may be the owners of cans, tubs, firkins, boxes, bottlers, casks, barrels, kegs, siphons, cartons, tanks, fountains, vessels, or containers, with his, her, its or their names, brands, designs, trade-marks, devices or other marks of ownei-ship stamped, impressed, labehul, blown in or oth- erwise marked thereon, may file with the Secretary of State a written statement or description verified by affidavit of such owner, or his, her or its agent, of the names, designs, brands, trade-marks, devices or other marks of ownership so used l)y iiim, her, it or them, and of the said articles upon which the same; are used. "Said statement shall be ]iublished once a week for three suc- cessive weeks in a newspaper printed in the English language and of general circulation in the county where such persons shall have their principal place of business, and the publication be paid for by the party applying for registration, a copy of which publication, proved in the same manner as proof of publication is now required to be made by law. shall also be tiled with the Secretary of State, * * *" " The above section applies only to such cans, boxes and otlier containers as are specifically mentioned therein, and no other articles can he registered under its provisions. Persons wishing to register trademarks und(M' the above sec- tion should carefully prepare a written description of the same, (178 APPKNMMX K. verified hy afj'ulavit. have .su«li (li'sc-ription pu1)lisli."(l as provided thorcin. and forward tin- oriijinnl initten description with proof i.f publication to this oiVut. with a f«'«' of our dollr.r. upo!i receipt of which sucli traih'inark will !»<• ri'^'istcrt'd and ccrtifioate of ri'^ristration furnished. Sdond. Section Wu'}, ('lui|)tcr 11!). CcihthI Statutes of IDUl), provides that '' whenever any association or union of \\tukin<,Miicn liavc adopted or shall hereafter adopt for tli reirister labels, trademarks or fonns of ad- vertisement under section 'Mu^) have only to file two copies, coun- terparts or fac-simdes with the S.-cretary of State with a fee of one dollar, upon receipt of wbidi smb label, trade-mark or form of advertisement will be registered and certificate of repristration furnished. 1'nle.s.s articles of merchandis.- on wbieli trad. -marks are sought to be registered come inuh-r the provisions of one or the other of the above .sections no protection would be ^'ivi-n the owner by their registration. No blank ap|>Iieations for registration of trademark will be furnished, as none are nee(leeinl)e'r or inciubers of such asso- eiation or union, it shall he unlawful to counterfeit or iinitJite .such Inhel, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertise- ment, or to use, sell. ofTer for sale or in any way \itter or cir- culate any count«'rfeit or imitation of any such liil)cl. trademark. term, desipu, device or form of advertisement. Skction 2. lie H furihrr cuariefl, ric. Whoever counterfeits or imitates any such label, trademark, term, desipn. device or form of advertisement ; or s«'lls. ofTers for sale or in any way utters or circidates any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, trademark, term, desipn. device or fonn of advertisement; or keeps or has in his possession with intent that the same shall be sold or disposed of, any poods, wares, merchandise or other product of labor to which or on which any sjich coiniterfeit or iiidtation is printed, painted, stamped or impressed; or know- inply sells or disposes of any poods, wares, merchandise or other products of labor contained in any box, case, can or packape, to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, painted, st^imped or impressed; or keeps or has in his pos.session with intent tliat the same shall be sold or disposed of, any poods, wares, merchandise or other product^of labor in any hox, case, can or packape to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitatiofi is attached, allixcd. printed, painted, stamped or impr&s.sed. shall be punished \\\ a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or l)y im|»risonmt'nt for not more than three months. Skction 3. Every such person, association or union that has heretofore ado|)ted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, a lai)el, trademark, term, desipn. device or form of adverti.sement a.i provide*! in section 1 of this act. may file the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State by leavinp two copies, coun- terparts or fac-similes thereof, with said Secretan' and ])y filinp therewith a sworn afiplication s|i(»cifyinp tin* name or names of the person, a.ssociation or union on whose behalf such label, trademark, term, desipn. device, or form of advertisement sliall be filed; the class of merchandise and a description of the poods. LOUISTANA STATl'IKS. 081 to wliicli it liiis lifcii or is iiitnitliMl to Im- iipproprialfd. statint? that lilt' paify so liliiij; or on whose bcliall' such hilx'l, Iradr-mark, term, dcsi^ni. dt'vicc or form of advertisement shall he filed, has the rij^'hl to flie use of the sa ; that no other person, (inn, association, union or corporation has the rii^ht to su<'h use, either in the identical lorm or in any such near reseud)lancc thereto as may Iw calculalecl to diceive. and that the fac-simile or coun- terparts filed Iherewitli are true and correct. There sliall 1)0 paid for such filing' and recording' a fee of one dollar. Said Sec- retary shall delM-er to such person, association or union so filing or causing; to h' filed any siirh lai.el. trademark, term, (h'si^Mi, deviee or form of advertisement so many didy attested certificates of the recordiii;,' of the .same as sucli person, as-social if)n or union may ai)|)ly foi-, for ea( h of wliidi .-■:•{ ificates said Secretary shall receive a fee of one uoliar. Any such certifieate of record shall in all suits and prosecutions under this act be sufficient proof of the adoption of such lal)el, trademark, term, desi«rn. device or form of advertisement. Said Secretary of State shall not record for any person, union or a.ssoeiation any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement that would probably be mistaken for any label, tradenuirk, term, desi«rn. device or form of advertisement heretofore filed by or on behalf of any other person, union or association. Section 4. Any person who shall for himself or on behalf of any other pei-son, association or union procure the filin? of any label, trademark, term, desi^jn, device or form of advertisement in the office of the Secretary of State under the provisions of this act. by making any false or^ fraudulent representations or declarations, verbally or in writing or by any fraudulent means, shall be liable to pay any damage sustained in consequence of any such filing to be recovered hy or on behalf of the party injured thereby in any court having jurisdiction and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or by im- prisonment not exceeding three months. Section 5. Every such person, association or union adopting or using a label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement as aforesaid may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacture, use, display or sale of any such counterfeits or imitations thereof, and all coui-ts of competent jurisdiction shall 682 .vri'KNDix F, Krant injuiu'tions to ri'strain such m.'niiif;i a tradtinurk for of wliicli tlin-i* copies, couiittrparts or fac-similcK, MAINK STATUTI-S. 683 arc licnw itli (ilfd for rccorfl in tin' ollii.' .'lit to siicli U8P, «'itlicr in the identical form herein ahovc dcscrilicd, or in any such rcacMihlanci' tiicrcto as may Ik- calculated to deceive, and the fac-winiiles or count<'r|)arts herewith filed are true and correct. Thus done and Bi<,'ned at tin; City of this day of , 19-. AFFID.W IT. State of , County of , ss: hcinf^ duly sworn, di-po.scH and says that lie is the I'rcsidcnt of the , the applicant named iu the foregoing instrument, and that the facts alleged in said instrument are true. Sworn to and buhscribed before me, this day of , l!l — . ]\otary Public STATE OF .MAINE. TBADE-MARKR. Extracts from Chap. 40. Revised Statutes, ln03. Section 22. Any person, entitled to the exclusive use of any trade-mark, or who intends to adopt and use any trade-mark not previously adopted or used by another, may file for record in the ofifice of the Secretary of State a certificate setting? forth his name, residence and i)Iace of bu.siness ; the cla.ss of merchandise and the particular description of jj^oods comprised in such class to which such ti'ade-mark ha.s been or is to l)e appropriated ; a description thereof, and of the mode in which it is to be applied and used; tlie date when it was first used oi- adopted; that he has a rigrht to the use of it, and that no other person, firm or corporation has the rijrht to such use, either in tlie identical form, or havino; such near resemblance thereto as i.s calculated to deceive. A fac-simile of such trade-mark shall be incorporated in or annexed to. said certificate, and a duplicate shall be filed therewith, to be pasted or boujid into the record book, if practic- able. Such certificate shall be si^ied and sworn to by sucii person, or his a»ent. C84 APPEKPIX V. SfxTIOn 2.'^ WlMK'Vcr wilfully swears or affiniis fnlsoly to any such ctM-tif'u'alr, is yuilty of pcTJury, ant! shall pay treble liainagt's to cvt-ry party injured thcrehy. If the Secretary of State has reason to apprehenil. on the lilinj,' of suth eertifi- eat< . that any .statement therein contained is untrue, he may decline to rec(»rd the same uides.s the party lilinf; it obtains a writ of mandamus to compel him. Such writ may he fjraiited by any proper court, hut without cost to the Secretary, on proof that all the statements in .such certificate are true, but no tiiuil hearinj; on the application therefor, .shall lie had until sueh notice thereof ji.s .said court orders has been advertised in one or more newspapers published in the country where the party filinj; .said certificate resides; and any persons who desire may app(>ar and intervene as parties defendant, am] opi)ose the ;;rantinp: of such writ, and shall be liable to jud<,Mnent for any costs occasioned by such intervention. Skctio.v '24. lOvery |)arty entitled to make and file such c;ertifieate and aflidavit. upon recording: the same in said office, becomes entitled to the exclusive use of the trade-nuirk therein described, so lontr as he or his assi«;ns continue to be enfjaped in the manufacture or sale of the merchandise or description of floods to which it is approprir.ted ; and such riplit is assignable in writing'; but all assignments tli(>reof are {jood oidy auainst the assiprnor and his personal representatives, until lodiieil for record in said office. Skction U."). The Secretary of State shall retain all such certificates on file, and cause the saim> and all assi^Miments of trade-mark rip:ht.s to be recorded at length in his oftiee. Copies of the record of any sueh certificate, attested by him under the seal of the .state, are prinui facie evidence of the riirbt of the party filinp: such certificate to the exclusive use of the trade- mark therein described for the periods limiteil in the preceding section. Skction 20. Whoever knowingly and wilfully counterfeits, '»r causes to be counterfeited, any private stamps, labels or trade- mark.s. u.sed by a mechanic or manufacturer al)out the sale of his poods, with intent to defraud the purchaser or numufaeturer; or Hells such 4;oods wfth such counterfeit stamps labels or maim: KTATl?TKK. . 085 trademarks thereon, knowinfr them to l)e counterfeit, without diselosiiif,' the tact to the purchaser, shall he punished hy imi)ris()iim(iit for not less tluiii one year, or l)y a tine not exceed- in|^ f w viso(l Statutes of 1S83, as anu'iuh'il with an additional section in Chap. 125. General Laws 185)1. KOKM OF Ari'I.U Al ION Foil KKGISTRATIoN. Sworn Stati-nn-nt ucctunpniiyinj; ft , filtd in lu-ODrdanou witli the laws of tlic Stato of : I, , do hen'bv ct-rtify that tho , ci.unttrparts or fac-HimilfK of which are filfd lu'rcwitli, i» Hh'd on hfliuif of — , doin;; l>UHini'HH in , »n tin' Stato oi . That tlu' particnhtr claHS of mprolian- ditk' and tlio parti-.-uhir d«'scripti«)n of tin- ;ioods to appropriatfd iH . That th»' I'sst'ntial fi-atun- of the said consistH of . That Raid haH ln't-n in \isi' hv tlif ahovc* named , aince That thf 8aid has tin- ri;,'lit to tlic use of thi- sanu-, and Uuik no otluT person, firm, ass«»ciation or cori)oration has tlie ri^ht to such us«', I'ithrr in tlic identical form, or in any sueli near resemlilance thereto as may he calculated to ('eceive. and that tlie fae-siniilc co|»ies or counter- parts filed lurevvith are true and corrt-ct. (Signature) . State of , County of , 88: On this day of A. D. 10 — , personally appeared the ahove named and made oath that the forej,'oing statement by him suiiserilied is true. Heforc me. M.VKVLAND. AN ACT to protect associations and unions of workin;nnen and per- sons in their lahels. tradenuirks and forni-< of ailvi-rtisin;,' and to punish «tirenders for a viidation of the same. Skction 1. Br it enacted bjf the Cenrrnl Assonhhj of Mary- land, That whenever any person, assoeiation or union of workinp- inen have adopted, or shall hereafter adopt for thfir protection any lal)el. trademark or form of advertisement announein«? and denotint; that floods to which sudi lahel, trademark or form of advertisement shall or may he attached, were mainifacturcd by such person or hy a memher or members of such association or union, it shall not be lawful for any person or corporation to counterfeit or imitate sueh label, trademark oi- form of advertisement, ev«'ry i)erson violating' this section shall be deemed ffijilty of a misdemeanor and shall ii|)on conviction by any court having: criminal jurisdiction be punished l)y imprison- MMni-ANI) STVTI'TKS 687 iiiciit ill till' i-ity or rniiiity jail i'nv not l('s.s than three months nor more tlian one year or liy a line of not h'ss than om- hundred dolhirs nor niore than live hundrcil dolhirs. or l)otli, in the discretion of tin- court. Section' 2. And he it (Hudcd, 'I'hat every |)erson. ('or[)ora- tion or association who shall use any counterfeit or imitation of any lahel, trademark or form of advertisement of any such person, union or association, knowing,' the same to he counterfeit or imitation, (he) shall he guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction hy any court having' criminal juris the judge. Section 4. And he it enacted. That every such person, association or union adopting a lahel. trademark or form of advertisement as afoi-esaid. may proceed hy suit to enjoin the manufacture, use. display or sale of any such counterfeit or imitation, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use, display or sale, f)8S ArPKNDIX V. nml shall nwnrd the complainant in such suit such damage resulting froni such wrongful inaiujfacturc, use. display »)r sale, ns may by said court he deenicd just and reasonable, according to the evidence in the cjise, and shall rcd dollars, or l)oth, in the discretion of the court. Section 7. ^\)id Itc It nui'trd, Tliat all tlie acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act arc licrchy rcpcalcil. Section 8. And hr it cnn(t((I, That tliis ad shall take cfTect from the date of its passage. Af)i)roved April 4th. lSf»2. Maryland also has an act for the i)rotection of the bottles, jugs. kegs, etc., of maniifacturers and dealers in mineral water and other beverages; sees. 'JOl-'JOfi. Article 27. ricncral Laws, amended by Acts ot 1HML>, Chapter JCJ. MASSALl I LSIOTTS STATUTES. 689 As to the it"(|uisites of a hill in < " tradfinark," "stiiiii|i"' or '•form of adver- tisement.'" The word "Ixveraire " or " lii'Vera^es" in M'etions fifteen to eighteen, inehisive. inehnh-s also "milk." "cream." "soda water," "nnneral" or "aerated waters," "ale." "hcer," "llinjjer ale" or "similar heverapes. " The word "ve.s.sel" or "vessels" in sections fifteen to eigrliteen, inclusive, includes "cans." "bottles." "siphons." "fountains" and "boxes." The word "i*an" or "cans" in secti(tns nineteen to twenty- three, inclusive. in<-lu(lfs ".iu^rs." "bottles" and "jars." LABELS AND TI^^nK^^\UKS. Skction "2. When a person ust>s any peculiar name upon or connectetl with an article niainifactured or sold by him to desipnate it as an article of a peculiar kind or (piality. or as manufactured by him, no other per.son shall without his consent use the same or any similar name for the purpose of falsely representinp an article to have been nmnufaetured by or to be of the same kind or (piality as those niainifactured or sold by the person ri«rht fully usinpr such name. Section 3. "Wlioever violates the provisions of the preceding section, and whoever knowingly sells or exposes for sale an article havinp a name upon or connected with it in violation of the provisions of the preceding section, .shall be liable in an action of tort to any party aggrieved thereby for all damages actually incurred. Section 4. Kvery manufacturer of leather or boots shall liave the exclusive ri^'lit of stamping the articles manufactured by him with his name and the name of the place of manufacture; and such stamping shall be considered as a warranty that the article stampetl is merchantable, made of good materials and well manufactured; and such article shall not be considered merchantable unless .so stamped. Section o. A person who carries on busine.s.s in this common- wealth shall not assume or continue to use in his business the MASSACHUSETTS STATUTES. GKl name of a person foi-mcrly coimcclcd with him in partnerKhip or the name of any otlier person, either alone or in conneetion vvitli his own or with any other name or desif^nation, without the eonst'iit in writing of sueh person or of his legal rei)reseu- talivt's. Section (». The supreme judicial court oc the superior court •sliall have jurisdiction in ecjuity to restrain the use of names or lal)c'ls in viohition of the ])rovision.s of this cha[)t('r. Section 7. Any pci-sou may adojjt a label, not previously owned or adojjtcd hy any other person, and file sueh label for record, by depositing two coj)ies or fac-simiie.s tiiereof in the office of the Secretary of the ( 'ommonwealth, one of which copies or fac-similes sludl be att.iched by the Secretary of tlie Common- wealth to the certificate of record hereinafter referred to. The api)licant shall file with the label a certificate specifying the name of the person so filing sucli label, his residence, situation or place of business, the kind of merchandise to which such label has been or is intended to be appropriated, and the length of time, if any, during which it has been in u.se. If such label has not been and is not intended to be used in connection with merchandise, the particular purpose or use for which it has been or is intended shall be stated in the certificate. Such certificate shall be accompanied l)y a written declaration, verified under oath by the person, or by a member of the firm or by an officer of the a.s.sociation, union or corporation, by which it is filed, tiiat the party so filing such label has a right to use the same, and that no other person has the right to such use, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive, and that flu- copies or fac-similes filed therewith are true. The Secretary of tlio Tommonwealth .shall issue to the person depositing such label a certificate of record, under the seal of the commonwealth, and the Secretary shall cause the certificate to be recorded in his office. Such certificate of record or a certified copy of its record in the office of the Secretary of the roinmonwealth. shall in all suit.>: and prose- cutions under the provisions of this section and of sections eight to fourteen, inclusive, be sufficient proof of the recortling of such label and of the existence of the person named in the 602 Ari'KNDIX K. oortificate. The fro for liliii^r llu" «'ortifu'atf aii«l ilcclaratioii ami issuing th«- irrlitiratr of ivcord sliall lu- two ilollars. No lulu'l shall lu' ri'c-ordotl wliirh i-oulil n-asonably be iiiistakiii for H lalK'I alnatly on riTcinl. Section i<. 'riu- Sccrrtary of tho Cominonwcaltli is authori/.t-il to make rejfulatioiis. and pri'si-rihi' forms for the tiling' of labels, umler tlu' provisions of thi- jircccdin}; sertion. Section !•. Tlu' supn-nu' judicial I'ourt or tlir superior eourt shall have jurisdietion in equity to restrain the inanufaeture. use or sale of eoiniterfeits or imitations of a lat>cl. n-fordrd as providetl in scetion s«'Vcn. sluiU award dania^'fs resulting from sueh wronirful nuinufaeture. use or sale and shall require the defendant to pay the owner of such lalid tlie profits derived from sueh wron^'ful nunnifaeture. use or sale; and nuiy also order that all sueh counterfeits or imitations in his possession or control be delivered to an oHiccr of tlie eourt. or to the complainant to be tle.stroyed. If the eom|)lainant is m)t incor- porated, suits under the provisions of sections .s«'Vfn. cijjht and ten to fourteen, inclusive, may be connnenced and pro.secuted by an officer thereof, on behalf of and for the use of the com- plainant. Every member of a comjilainant lirm. association or union shall lie liable for costs in any siirli |)roc('c(linp. Section 1<>. Whoever ialth, or a printing' press, or types or other tools, machines or materials provide(l or prepared for makinj? a counterfeit or imitation of MASSAciiisKTTs sTATi ri>;. 003 siicli lal)oI, sliall l)f' [tniiisli('(l l)y a liiir of iiof moi-f lliari two limidrctl tlollacs oi* \)\ iiii[icisniiirM'iif tor not iiiorr tli;iii (Uir year, r this section when tbe (h'fendant.s were shown to have a |dace of busine.«« within the state, a conviction was sustained in the absence of any proof as to where the defendants intended to sell the cigars bearing the counterfeit mark. Conttnouircalth v. Bozcu. 170 M'.uis. l'J!». :u X. K. Rep. l2*J:i Pub. Stat. Ch;ip "•!. sei-. 1. providin-^' that trademarks can not be used without the consent of the owner, does not apply to a mark that is the name of a nuichinc upon which there has been a patent, after the expiration of the patent. Dover Stamp- ing Co. V. Fclhus, K;:? Mass. 1!)1. U) N. K. Kep. U).'). Section fi. Chapter 7fi. Pub. Stat., forbidding any person to "a.s.sume or continue to use" in his business the name of a person formerly connected with him in partnership, or the name of any other person "without written consent." does not apply to a person advertising himself as "formerly with" or "successor to" anotlier. Martin r. Iloirlcr, ir.:5 .Mass. 4fil, 40 N. E. Rep. 7nn. In a bill in eo. nnf firm : if an officer of au asmiriation, union or rtirporalion, innrrt thr name of offirer, title of office, and name of the aaBoriat»on. union or corporation. Outnidr of M'lH.sachuHcttH, oath ia to be adminiittcrcd hi/ a CommiHsioner for MaHsachnscttH or a yotary rublir] do 1i«T«-1.y jl.oliin' in ncctinlano' witli thf piovisinnn of R4'ition 7 of cluiitt«T 72 «>f tin- lJ«viw«l l.HWrt tlint , lui — [have or haa] a rijfht U» uw tin- [innrrt the designation, Inhct. trademark, ntamp or form of advertisement, ait the cane mail be] rcfi-rri'd to in the fon-^oinjj ctTtififntf. Hud that no i>thfr pi-rwin, firm, aHuociation, uiiiun or corpora- tion hai* tlic rijjlit to huiIi u-*f, ritlur in thi- identical form or in any such near rrwmhiancc tln-n-to as may he calculated to deceive, and I furtiier «leclare that the copicH or facsimiles filed with the for<'- j;oinjj certiti«at«' are tru*'. In witncsH whereof, I have heretti Hi. who shall violate any of the pro- visions of MH'tion one of this a«'t, or who shall knowingly or wilfully violate any provision of section two of this act, shall he (leenunl to have eonunitted a misdemeanor therehy, and on eonvietion thereof shall he punished hy a fine of not less than ton nor more than one hundred dollars, or hy imprisonment in the eounty jail for a period not ('xeeedinp: ninety days, or hy hoth sueh fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. (lir)S41 Skctidn 4. In action at law or procecdinirs in equity hrotight on l)ehalf of any such association or union which is not incorporated, tlu' same may l)e hrou of any niemher of sueli association or union, who has Ixh'u duly author- ized so to do hy .such association or union, hut for the use and henefit of all of the members of such association or union: f>roriiIt(l, that before conunenciiiLr sucli action or proceeding; the member so authorized shall file with the justice or clerk of such court a certificate of the president and secretary of such asso- ciation or union, showing' that such authority has been granted. Any criminal proceeding; brought for a violation of any pro- vision of this act. may he prasecuted by the authorized attorney of such association or union, in the court where originally com- menced, but in sucli case the fe(>s and compensation of such attorney shall be liornc and paid exclusively by such a.ssocia- tion or union: provUl(pear in his stead. (llGSf)) Skction T). 10 very such person, association or union that lijLs heretofore adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, a label, tradenuirk. term, design, ilevice or form of advertisement, as (trovided in section one of this act. shall file the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State, hy leav- inir twt) copies, counterparts or fac-similes thereof, with said Secretary .ind by flliiiL' therewith a sworn statement specifying ■Mlf;iII<;\V STATUTKS. OOO tlio iiaino or Tiamos of the person, assorintion or union on wliose behalf such lal)rl. t radcin.-ifk. t.riii, drsi^Mi, dcvicf or t'onii of ailviM-tiscinent shall he filed, the class of mcrchaiidisii and a particular description of the poods to which it has been or in intended to he ajjpropriated ; that the parly so lilint:, or on whost; hehalf such lahel. tradeiiuirk, term, (h'sipii, device or form of advcrtiseiiieni shall he filed has the ri^ht to the use of the same, and that no other person, firm, association, union or corporation has the rij^ht to such use, either in the identical form or in any .such near resemhlance thereto as may he calculated to deceive, and tliat ihe rac-similc copies or counterparts filed there- with are true and correct. There shall he paid for such filing? and recording? a fee of one dollar. Any person who .shall for himvself, or on behalf of any other person, association or union, procure the filing of any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement in the ofTfice of the Secretary of State, under the provisions of this act. l)y making any false or fraudu- lent rei)resentations or declaration, verbally or in writing, or by any fraudulent means, shall be liable to pay any damages sustained in consequence of any such filing, to be recovered by or on ])ehalf of the party injured Ihereliy in any court having jurisdiction, and shall be i)unishod by a fine not exceedincr one hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by lioth such fine and imprisonment. Said Secretary shall deliver to such person, association or union so filing or causing to be filed any such label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement so many duly attested certificates of the recording of the same as such person, association or union may apply for, for each of which certificates said Secretary shall receive a fee of one dollar. Any such certificate of record shall in all suits and prosecutions under this act be prima facie proof of the adoption of such label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement. Said Secretary of State shall not record for any person, union or association, any label, trade- mark, term, design, device or form of advertisement that would reasonably be mistaken for any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement theretofore filed by or on ])ehalf of any other person, union or association. (11686) Section 6. Tn no case shall the certificate from the Secretary of State, obtained in conformity with the fifth section 700 .M*I'KNI>IX K. of this art, Im- a«iMt'niilil«> li\ tlif party to wlioiii tliv' saiiu' is iissueii. (N. H. — If a i iii^ ii [inMiit thr tmnl lalnl, truth- mark, tr form nf adrrrtisrnif fil , hh Ihr casr mai/ br\ nietl in acfordanor witli Ait NO. Joii of the Public Acts i.f IH't:.. of Michi)n>n. I, , [if a prrHiiu, iiisrri nomf : if rr/« "a mrtnhrr >tf thr firm or copnrtnrr- ahip doing husinrsK undrr thr nomr ami Htt/lr of," thrn give the rum- ;>any nnmr, and add "romimsrd of" giving namra of thr members; if an officer of an aimoriation, eorporation, or uiiiott, iiiHrrt namr, title of «i/^fv and name of the asHoeiatinn, eorporation or union] do hervhy declare that tin* [insert the trord label, trademark, term, drsign, device or form of advertisement, as the ease mag be] counterparts or fac-Bimilea of wliiih an- fili'd lu-n-with is filed «»n lulialf of , tliut tlie |iarticular tiass of mrrc-liandiHc and u particular dcHcription of the ;,'ood« to which it has lK?en or is intended to he appropriated is tliat the aaid has tlu* ri};lit to tlie use of the same and that no other jx-rson, firm, ass<»eiation, union or corporation has tlie ri^^lit to such use, eitlier in the i(h-ntieHl form, or in any such near resemhlance tliereto as may he calcuhitod to deceive, and tliat the fac-simile copies or counter- parts filed herewith are true and correct. I .S'l;; u h ere j . State of , County of , Hs: On this day of , A. D. 10 — , hefore me a , per- tMiUally appean-d the altove-named . ami made oath that the fore- jjoinp statement by him 8ub8cril)ed is true. My commission exjiires , 10 — . MINNESOTA. Chapt.r UJ, Ceneral Laws. ISO.'i. TUADII.M ARKS. AN ACT to amend an A<1 entitled an .\ct Relatin;; to Lahids, Trade- marks and Advertiw-ments, and to I'rovinif^ota: Skctiov 1. That Kcctioii 1 of an act n-latin^ to lalids. tradc- inark.s and aflvertisemcnts, and to provide? for their protection MINNKSOTV STXTITKS. 70] iiiid tlie piiiiisliiiiciit. lor couiittTtfit iii^^ tlic suiiic, or tor usint? fomitcrfcits of flic saiin- hciii^ chapter twenty-four (24) of the (ieiiei-al Jiaws of MiiiiicsotJi of one thousand ci{;ht hundred ninety-three (iSiKT, , he, and the saiix- is lierehy amended to read as foUows, namely : "Seetion 1. Pkotkction. Whenever any jxTson, or any association or lunon of working-men has heretofore adoi)ted or used or shall hereaftei' adopt or use any laltei, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement r<»r the purpose of desif^natinjr, nud\ iiiiprisomm-nt lor not more tlian thrt'f months." Skction a. That sti-tion thr»'t' (il' of said act he ami the sijuin' is horehy anirndiMl so as to read as follows, namely: "Section '{. Kiuisticy. i^vny sudi person, association or union that has heretofore ado|>tfd or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use a lahrl, trademark, term, desi^jn. device, or form of advertisement, as j^rovidcd in s(M-tion one (1 ^ of this act, may file the same for record in the oflice of the Secretary of State by leavinj; two copies, counterparts or fa<'-similes ther"of with said Secretary, and hy tiling' therewith a sworn application spccifyinjr the lumie or names of the person, association or union on whose behalf such label, tradenuirk. term, desi<:n, device or form of advertisement shall be filed: the class of merchandise and a description of the jroods to which it has been or is intended to be api)ropriated : «tatinp that the party so filing or on who.se behalf such label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement shall be filed has the right to the use of the same; that no other person, firm, association, union or corporation has the right to such use either in the identical form or in any such nenr resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive, and that the facsimile or counterparts filed therewith are true and correct. There shall be paid for such filing and recording a fee of one (1) dollar. Any person who shall for himself or on behalf of any other person, association or union procure the filing of any label, trademark, term, design or form of adver- ti.sement in the office of the Secretary of State under the provisions of this act, by making any false or fraudulent repre- sentations or declaration, verbally or in writing, or by any fraudulent means, shall be liable to pay any damages .sustained in consefpienee of any such filing, to l)e recovered by or on behalf of the party injured thereby in any court having juris- diction and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred r*lfK)i dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three (3) mf)ntlis. Said Secretary shall deliver to such person, asso- ciation or uni*sing the same off upon the community as the original goods, manufactures, preparations or compounds of any other person or persons, body corporate or politic, or who shall wrongfully and fraudulently sell or use the genuine stamp, brand, imprint, wrapper, label or trademark, with intent to pass off any goods, wares, merchandise, mixtures, compounds or other articles not the manufacture of the person or persons, body corporate or politic, to whom such stamp, brand, imprint, wrappei-s. label or trademark properly belongs, as genuine and original, shall, upon convection thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be puiiished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than six months, nor more than twelve months, or be fined not more than five thousand dollars. Section 6910. Any person who shall vend or keep for sale any goods, ware.s. merchandise, mixture or preparation, upon which any forged or counterfeit stamps, brands, imprints, wrappers, labels or trademarks shall be placed or aflRxed. and intended to represent the said goods, wares, merchandise, mixture or preparation as the genuine goods, wares, merchandise, mixture or preparation of any other person or persons, know- ing the same to be counterfeit, shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars in each case so offending, and shall also be liable in a civil action to the person or persons whose goods, wares, merchandise, mixture or preparation is counterfeited or imitated, or whose stamps, brands, imprints, wrappers, labels, or trademarks are forged, counterfeited, placed or affixed, for all damages such person or persons may or sliall sustain by reason of any of the acts in this section mentioned, and may be restrained or enjoined by any court of competent 70G APPKMMX K. jurisdiction from lioinj^' or jiirforiiiint.' any of tlu' acts above inentionod. Skction ()J)11. Any person or persons who sluill. witli intent to defniud any pers4)n or pei-sons. Itody cttriiorate or |)olitit', knowinjrly aflix or ean.se to he atVixed to m- upon any hotth-. case. l»ox or paekajre containing' any ^oods. nianufacture nux- tnrc. preparation or compound, any stamp, l>rand, hd»el, wrapper, imprint or trailenuirk. which shall desi^rnatc such poods, manu- facture, mixture, preparation or compound, either wholly or in part, the same to tin* eye or in sound t»» the ear, as the won! or words, or .some of the words, used hy any other person or persons for desiniuitiiifr any jjoods, maiuifai-ture. nuxture. preparation or compound manufactured or j)repareil hy or for such other person or persons, or who shall knowinply sell or expase, or offer for side, any such hottlc, case, l)ox or i)ackatre, with any such stamp, ])rand, label, wrapper, imprint or nuirk affixed to or upon it shall, provided such person or persons so aflRxinp or causinfi: to he affixed any such .stamp, l)rand, label, wrapper, inijjrint or mark, or to sellinp: or exposing, or offering for sale, any such bottle, case, box or packapre, shall not have been the first to employ or use such words, to tle.siprnate, wholly or in part, any poods, manufacture, nuxture, preparations or compound, upon conviction thereof. ])e deemed ^Miilty of a misdemeanor, ami shall be i)unished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than six nor more than twelve months, or be fined not more than five thousand dollars, and shall also be liable to the party atrprieved in the penal sum of one hundred (h)llars for each and every otTense, to be recovered l>y him in a civil action. Section' 0012. Any person or persons who, with intent to defraud, or to enable another to di-frauil. any person, shall manufacture or knowinply .sell, or cause to be mainifactured or sold, any article or articles, marked, stamped or branded, or Incased or itido-sed in any box, bottle or wrapper having thereon any enpraving or enpravinps. or printed labels, stamps, imprints, marks, or trademarks, which article or articles are not the manufacture, workmanship or production y or upon such engraving or engravings, j)rintcd labels, MINNKSOTA ST ATI 'IKS. T<>7 stamps, imprints, ni.iiks or t i;i(lriii;ii-laid to the informer, and the residue shall lie applied tathe sujiport of tin- poor in the county where such recovery is had. Section f)f)i:^. A "trademark" is a mark used to indicate the maker, owiier or seller of any jroods, wares, merchandise, mixture, preparation or coini)ound. ami includes, among other things, any name of a person or corporation, or any letter, word, device, emhleiu, fi^nire. seal, stamp, diagram, brand, wrapper, ticket, stopper, la})el, or other mark lawfully adopted hy him and usually affixed to any goods, merchandise, mixture, prepara- tion or compound to denote the same was imported, manu- factured, produced, sold, compounded, bottled, packed or other- wise prepared hy him. Section GO 14. A trademark is deemed to he affixed to any goods, wares, merchandise, mixture, preparation or compound when it is placed in any manner in or upon either — (1) The article itself; or (2) A box, hale, harrel, bottle, case, cask, or other vessel or package, or a cover, wrapper, stopper, l)rand. label, or other thing, in, by, or with which the goods are packed, inclosed or otherwise prei)ared for sale or disposition. Section 6915. An imitation of a trademark, stamp, brand, wrapper, or label is that which so far resembles the genuine trademark, stamp, hrand, wrapper or label as to be likely to induce the belief that it is genuine, either by the use of words or letters similar in appearance or in sound, or by any sign, device, or the names whatsoever. Section 6916. No testimony or evidence given by any person in any civil action to which such person may be a party, or by any other witness in such action, or on any reference or pro- ceeding which may be had in such action, nor any e^^dence or 70s MM'KM>1.\ 1". « tt'stimoiiy tU'rivrd from tlif hooks or iiiip.-rs of sii.-h i-arty or witm-.ss, protliifcd In liiiii as witness, or otlnTwis.'. in siuh action, or on any ivft'ivncf or other proeeedinjrs wliicli may l)e liad therein, ean or shall he used in iiny eriminal prosecution a-rainst siu'h party or witness, under any of the provisions of this act; nor shall any party or witness refuse to testify or furnish evitlenee in any civil action hy reason (d" any of the provisions of this ai't. Minnesota also has an art .•ntille.l "An act to protect the owners of receptacles used in tlu' sale of .soda waters, nnneral or aerated water, porter, ale, eider, K'inger ale. small heer, laj^er heiT, Weiss heer, heer, white heer, malt extraets. other l)everat2:es, nulk. cream, ice cream and hutter," approved April V.h 1905. The statutory penalty for tiie infringement of a trademark can only he recovered where the fraudulent intent of the defendant is shown. \\'\isin.-ss of «aid corporation since ahout tlie day ()f . l" The Baid tradtinark is usually applied l-y means of [Sign here]. State of County of , licin;: duly sworn, says that he is the . of the corpora- tion, , the applicant named in the fore^joinj: statement; that he verily believes that the fore^'oin- statem.nt is true; that the said corpora- tion "at thin time has the ri^dit t<. the use of the trademark therein pre- -.•ril..-.l that no other jierson. firm, asHociation or cc.rporation has the MlSSISSIl'l'I STATl TES. 709 rifilit to suc'li use, citlicr in tli<' identical furm (ir in any hiidi riciir it- HcinliluiK'c llnT('t() as may la- caliulattd to dcccivf; und tliut tin* dcHorij) tioii and copy, facsiniilf or coiintciiiart filed tlicr«'\vitli truly rfii)rcH«'nt tin' trademark soiij^dit to lie rej^istered. I »S' i stamp, wrappc^rs, or labels, usually affixed l)y any mechanic oi- manufacturer to. and used by such mechanic or mainifacturer on, in, or about the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanoi*, and. upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months nor more than one year. Section l;}07. Every person who shall have in his posses- sion any die, ])late, engraving, or printed label, stamp, or wrapper, or any representation, likeness, similitude, copj', or imitation of the private stamp, wrapper, or label usually affixed by any mechanic or manufacturer to and used by such mechanic or manufacturer on, in, or about the sale of any goods, wares or merchandise, with intent to use or sell the said die, plate, or engraving, or printed stamp, label, or wrapper, for the purpose of aiding or assisting in any way whatever in vending any goods, wares, or merchandise in imitation of, or intended to resemble and be sold for the goods, wares, or merchandise of such mechanic or manufacturer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or impri.sonment in the county jail not less than three months nor more than one year. Sectiox 1308. Every person wlio shall vend any goods, wares, or merchandise, having thereon any forged or counter- feit stamp or label, imitating, resembling, or purporting to be 710 Al'l'KNIMX r. tho stamp or laln-l of any iiifcliaiiic or inamifiifiurcr, knowiiij^ tlu' sanu' tc !>" fortit'il or i'ouiit«'rt"i'it<' !)«• imitations of tin* stamps or laltfls of such nu'flianif or maiuiracturt'r. \\itli(»ut disclosinj,' llir fact to the purcliast'r tluTrctf, shall In- guilty of a misjlciiiranor. aiiil. upon ronviftion, sliall lu' puiiislu'd hy imprisonment in tlw loiinty jail not exiHvdin^j throe months, or In a line not less than fifty nor more than live hundred dollars, or l>oth. MISSOl KI. Ri'viwd Stalnt.s. l!Mi«». MARKS ANn ISKANHS OK FI.OIH. KTC. Section fifilS. Hkani>s not to w. ai.tkhko. No -fierson shall deface, remove. o])literate or destroy, or cause the same to l)e done, any hrand or mark placed upon any paekajre or harrel of flour, meal, {rrits or hominy by the manufacturer thereof, with intent to replace the hrand so erased and removed hy another and difTerent hrand from that of the manufacturer; and it shall not he lawful for any person to rehrand any such package or harrel. so lonerson doing any of the acts in this article prohibited, or omitting to do any of the acts hereby conuuanded, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every offense shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty nor more than two hundred dollars, one-half of which shall be paid to the person who shall be named as prose- cuting witness. TRADEMARKS. Section-. 11780. \\\tQ may adopt a trademark and liow. 11790. Penalty for counterfeiting trademarks. 11701. Penalty for using false die, brand, etc. 11702. Penalty for keeping or selling goods with false brand. 11703. Penalty for affixing false labels, etc.. witli intent to defraud. 11794. What courts liave jurisdiction. 1170."). Articles bearing false trademarks to be destroyed. 1170(5. What evidence shall not be used in criminal prosecutions. Section 11789. Wfio may adopt a trademark and now. If any mechanic, manufacturer, association oi- union of working- men, or other person, .shall wi.sh to adopt any particular name, term, design oi' device as his or their tradciiuirk, to desigiuite, make known or distinguish any article of good.s, wares or irierchandise by him or them manufactured or prepared, or any union of workingmen desiring to designate or make known the place in which union lahor is employed, he or they may write out a description of such name, term, design or device, 712 APPENDIX V. ilest'rihinp tlie sninc- accurately, ami sipn ami acknowlcdfio the same before some oflfiecr competent to take the acknowledtj^ment of ileeils. ami file tlu' sjiiiie. to^ri'ther witli a fac-simiK' of the iiaiiu". term, design or (lc\ ice for registration in tlie office of the SiHTi'tarv of State; said Scrretarv sliall deliver to such mechanic, manufacturer, association or union of workin^'nuMi or other persons so filing the same, a dul\- attested certificate of the filing of the sjune. for which he shall receive a fee of one dollnr; such certilieate shall in all suits and prosecutions under this chapter. Ih* sufficient proof of the adoption of such lat)el, tradenuirk or form of advertisement, and of the right of such mechanic, manu- facturer, association or union (»f workingmen or other persons to adopt the same. Xn lalul. ti*;ideiiiark or form (»r advertisement shall he registered that in any way rcsemliles. oi- would prob- ably be mistaken for a label or trake. fr. engraving, mold or trademark usuallv affixi-d by any niaunracturer. mecjianic. merchant, tradesman, druggist, person or body corporate, association or union of workingmen. or body politic to, upon or used in connection with the goods, wares, merchandise, com- pound or preparation of such manufacturer, mechanic, mrrchant, tra\>y or iiiiit.itioii is alfixtMl, oi- in coinicftion willi wliii-li llic same may lie used or intended to !»e so al'lixcd or nscd. as tin- work, jjoods, wares, implements, niereliandise, compound or prejiara- tion of snrli niaiuiractnrcr, MU'dianir. nicreliant, druitrjjist, trades- man, person association or niiion of workinKiiien. or l)ody eor- porate or politic, shall. n|)on conviction tliereol'. It" deemed j^uilty ol" a misdemeanor, and shall he [uinished hy imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than three months nor more than twelve months, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, or hoth such fine and imprisonment. ( R. S. ISOf), sec. 10:5GG.) Section 1171)1. Pen.vlty for ising f.vi.se die. brand, etc. Any person or i)ersons. association or union of vvorkingrmen, who shall, with intent to defraud any person or persons, or body corporate or politic, have in his, her or their possession any die or dies, plate or plates, brand or brands, engraving or engravings, printed labels, stamps, imprints, molds, wrappers or trade- marks, or any representation, likeness, similitude, copy or imita- tion of the private label, brand, stamp or wrapper, engraving, mold or trademark usually affixed by any manufacturer, mechanic, merchant, tradesman, druggist, association or union of workingnien, person or body corporate or politic, to, upon or u.sed in connection with articles made, manufactured, pre- pared or compounded by him, her or them, for the purpose of making impressions, or selling the same when made, or using the same ujion or in connection with any other article made, manufactured, prepared or compounded, and passing the same off upon the community as the original goods, wares, imple- ments, merchandi.se, compound or preparation of any other |)erson or jiersons. association or union of workingmen, or body corporate or politic, or who .shall in fact sell or use the same, or for the purpose of secreting the same from the rightful owner oi- owners, or who shall wrongfully or fraudulently use the genuine label, brand, stamp, wrapper, imprint, engraving, mold or trademark, with intent to pass ofT any goods, wares, imple- ments, merchandise, compound or preparation, or other article not the manufacture of the person, persons, association or union of workingmen. or body corporate or politic, to whon\ 714 M'IMNhix k. suoh Inhel, l>raiul, stamp, wrapiu-r. tMinrnvinp. imprint, mold or trailomark properly heloiif^s, as jjeiiuiiio and original, shall, upon convii'tioM tlu-ri-of, he dccmod ^juilty of a mistlcmcaiior, ami shall he punislu'tl liy imprisoinni'iit in the county jail not less than three months nor more than twelve months, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand ilollars, or hoth sueh fine and imj)risonment. (R. S. 1S!)9, sec. 10367.) Section- 117'.i2. Pknai.tv fou kf.epinc ok sellino goods with k.\i>:k bhanos. Any person, persons, a.ssociation or union of work- injrmen, or hody eorporale or politit, who shall vend or keep for sale any jroods. wares, iiierehandi.se, eompounds or preparations ^ upon whieh or in eonnection with whieh any forced, imitation or fountert'eit lahi'l, brand, .stamp, wrapper, imprint, cnjjraving, bottle or trademark shall be placed, affixed or used, and intended to re|)resent the said ersons, association or unioTi of workingmen, or l)ody corporate or iiolitic. or who shall K'nowingly sell or expose or offer for sale any sucli case, box, web. i)ackage, or bottle, with any such label, l)rand, stamp, wrapper, engravincr, imprint or mark affixed to or ui)on it, shall, provich-d such jjcrson or per- son.s affixing or causiiig to l)e affixed any such label, brand, stamp, wrapper, engraving, imprint or mark or so selling or offering for sale any such case, Imx, web, package or bottle, shall not have been the first to employ or use such word or words or general design to designate, wholly or in part, any goods, wares, merchandise, compound or preparation, and upon conviction thereof be deemed guilty of a misdemeaimr, and shall be liable to the party aggrieved in the penal sum of five ium- dred dollars, and for a further sum equal to the amount which the aggrieved pnrty might have received for the same amount of genuine goods, wares, merchandise, compounds or prepara- tions, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a pei'iod of not less than one month nor more than tAvelve months or fined not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than five thousand dollars, or ])oth such fine and imprisonment. (R. S. isno, s(M-. MY.mK) Section llTiM. What courts have jurisdiction. All courts of this state having jurisdiction of criminal cases .shall have TIG APPKNniX F. juristliotioii 'ht in tin* iwuiu" of tlu* president and secretary, to the use and benefit of association or corporation, and nuiy thus sue and be sued. ( H. S. 18!M). sec. 10370.) Skction 117!>."). Aktici.ks hkakin*; kalsf. tradf.mahks to be i»t>%THOYKn. it shall he the duty of any otTicer within the juris- diction of the court luivin«,' authority, to wlioni there shall be delivered any warrant for the arrest of any |)erson alle^'cd to have committed any olTense created hy tiiis chapter, to seize any and all {joods, wares, merchandisi'. compounds. i)reparations, labels, brands, implements, stamps. wrap|)ers. imprints, cufxrav- inps. platens, bottles, dies or mokis, mentioned or referred to in the complaint, or afTidavit or information, upon which said warrant issued, and upon linal convicti<»n of the otTender. the court shall direct such of same as nuiy he counterfeit to be destroyed, and they shall be so destroyeil accordingly: Proiidrd, liou'ci'cr, That if said property consists of wares and nu>rchan- dise. which, in the judgement of the court, are independent of any trademark, of genuine and intrinsic value, and capable of bein? applied to a usefid and beneficial purpose, then and in such case all counterfeit words, nuirks, wrappers, labels, em- blems, stamps, brands, bottles, imprints and si«jns used in con- nection therewith shall be first erased. ol)literated and destroyed, and said property shall be sold within ten «lays next succeeding the decision of the court thereon, in such manner as the court shall direct, and the proceeds of said side, less the expense thereof, be aj)plied to the benefit of the school fund of the county in which said seizure was elTected. (R. S. ISDi), sec. 10371.) Section 117!Mi. What kvidf.ncf. .'^iiai.l not of. iskd in crim- inal I'KOSKCiTioNs. No testimony or evidence ^iven by any person in any civil action to which said person may be a party, or by any other witness in such action, or in any reference or proceedinjr which may be had in such action, nor any testimony or evidence derived from the books or papers of .such party or witness, (»r oth»'rwise, in such action, or in any reference or other MLSSOl'KI STATITHS. 717 procoodiiif^ uiiicli may Ix- had t Inrcin, can or slmll ho askod in any criminal prosecution a^'ainst siidi part>- (»r witiicws, under any of" llic provisions of this <'haj)t('r, nor shall any party or witness refuse to testify or furidsh evidence in any civil action hy reason of any of tlic provisions of this chapter. (K. S. 1899, sec. 1();{72.) Section 117IK)a. Any person or persons, employer, associa- tion who shall lr of det'ds of the eoiinty or eity. See. 483;i eontains pro- visions for seareh warrants in sueh eases. Under see. 117!>;} an information which sets out and eontains n copy of the defenchmt's lal)el, and of the h\l)el which the de- fi'ndant's hil)el is alh'Ked to imitate, and which aUepes that the ih'femhmt's hihel imitates the other "in part," hut does not stati' what part of tiie one is an imitation of tlie otlier, is fatally vlefective. State v. Thicrauf. KiT Mo. 4-Jl). (i7 S. \V. K.-|i. 'J!>'2; Stoic V. nick. I(i7 Mo. 'ITl. An information in a pro-secution for selliiif; ei<»ars in ho.xes hearing; a counterf«'it union lahel, in which a p:einiine union lahel was pasted, was approved in State v. Sicmnauu, lol .Mo. App. 507, 74 S. W. Kep- 638. An Act of 1S!)3, for tlie |)rott'cti()n ol' union hilx'ls has heen ln'ld not to !>!' in violation of articU' 1\', see. W.\. of the Constitu- tion of Missouri; and that to sustain a conviction, pjuilty knowl- edjre hv the defendant must I)e shown. State v. liishop, V2H Mo. H7:>. :U S. W. Rep. !). The early act against counterfeiting trademarks (Wag. St., p. 1330) was held to he designed for the protection of trade- nuirks. regardless of the citizenship of their ownei's. It might, therefore, he invoked in a prosecution hased upon a trademark owned ))V a citizen of another country. State r. Gibhs, ")(> Mo. 133. That a union lahi-j wa.s used as a device or trademark for .sell- ing and delivering cards hy a party who had no right to u.se it, sueh party was liahle to prosecution ami punishment under this .section, see State v. St. Clair, 137 Mo. App. 183. That the words "or other heverage," as used in sec. 4829, refer to heverages known as ''mineral water" or ".soda water," see State v. Dintiisae, 10!) Mo. 434; State r. Hasl.oieitz, 156 S. W. Hep. 045. FORM OF AIMM.KATION KOK KK( i iS'l'KATION OF THADlvMARK. KOU.M FOK fOlJI'oIIA TKiNS. Knoir all TTHjt hy tlnHc preacntn: Tliat tlu' , a (((rporiition duly <»r;,'iuii/.i(l und ixiHting under the lawrt of the State oi , and liaviii;,' its oilier in tlic City of , fuiid State, deHirin;: to avail itwlf of tlie proviHions of eliapter 120, MISSOURI STATCTES. 713 lU'viHrd StatiitcH of l!Mi!t, iiiiil iiioir |)arti('uliirly of »<'c. 11780 theroof, lius ailoptcil for its use a tiailnnark to dcHi^riiatf, make kiiDwn or (IIh- tiiimiiHli a cirlaiii article of ^'oodw, ware or incrc-liaiHlim- liy it inaiiufuc- turi'd or prcparrd, of wliicii the followiiij^ \h a d<>Hcri|ition: , till' cHHciitial fcaturr nf wliicli tin- , an applied tu ; and that tin- fiic similes prcHciitfd licrcw ith arc true and correct copies tlicn-of. In testimony whereof, the Haid eorjairation has eauHcd thin inHtrnnient to l)(! sif^ned hy its and the 8eal of Haid corporation to he hcrreto attached, at tlie City of , .State of , thia day of , 11)—. [Seal.] , [I'rcsidttit or utluT duhj authorized officer.] State of , ("oiinty of , as: On this day of , lit — , liefore me appeared , to me personally known, who, hein;^ hy me duly Hworn did say that he in the of the said , a corporation, and that the seal allixed to the fore^'oin;,' instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was sif^nied and sealed in helialf of said corporation by authority of its lioardof directors, and said acknowledfjed said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation, for the ])ur])08e therein stated. In testimony whereof, I liave hereunto set my hand and allixed my seal at my oflicc in the City of the day and year last above written. My commission expires . , Notarij Public. FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS OR TARTNERSHIPS. Know all mcv hi/ these presents: That T, . residinj; in the City of . State of , liavc adopted for my use a trademark to designat<', make knowii or distinguish a certain article of goods, wares or merchandise by me manufactured or prei)ared, of which the following is a descri|)tion : the essential feature of wliich the , as applied to ; and that the fac-similes presented herewith are true and correct copies theret)f. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand at the City of . State of , this day of , 19—. State of , County of , ss: On this day of , Ifl — , before me personally appeared , to me known to be the person described in and who executed 720 AriMNOIX K. tho foro;joinir instnimont. nml aikii<>\vl.(l;,'.(l that lio oxecutrd tlic sanu' HH hi«« in^' Hct itnii ilt-rd. In trHliuumy \vhrrH>f, 1 liuvr hiTciinUt m-t my luiiul ami atlixt-d my wul at my oHicf in tin- City «>f tlio (lay and year lawt alK)vo written. My i»>mmio!«iiiM iM«< hr txcctitrd in duplicate. In other irr>rrf«, two orir).) Section ♦i4.'{. ICvery such person, association or unioti that heretofore ado|)ted, or shall hereafter a(h)pt. a label, trademark or form of advertisement as aforesaid may file the same for record in the ofTice of the Secretarv (tf State, bv leaving two MJtICASK.V STA'n TKS. I'll copies, coiiiitciparts or fac-siinilcs llicrcof with tlio Rocretarj' of State; said Secretary sliall deliver to .sinli person, association or union filint; the same a duly atte^ste(| (•crtifieatc of the record of the same, for whii-h lie shall receive a fee of one dollar. SiU'li eertilieate of reeoi-d shall in all suits and pros^-cut ions under this act he sutlicient proof of the adoption of such lahel, trarsoii .shall have in his pos.session any die or dies, plate or plates, brand or brands, engraving, imprint, printed labels, wrappers, or any other instrument, thing or means whatever with intent ther<>with or thereby to falsely make, forge, or counterfeit any matter specified in the last preceding 722 APPENDIX F. section, or to cans*' or ciiatili' tlii- saiiu* to 1m> doiic ; or shall liave in his possossiou any such falsely Mia(h'. forj^cd. or countt'rt't'iti'd niatt«'r wln-thtT the sjiinc Im- conipli'tcd or only partly rxccutiul, for the purpose of hartcrin^r. sillin^r. or disposinj; tlicroof, know- injj tin* same to ho falsi'ly nuide. fortjcd or i-oiinttrfeitcd. with intent therehy to |)re.iudi»'e. (hwnajro or defraud any person or persons, hody jiolitic or eorpornte. every person so ofTendinf? shall he imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than six months nor more than ten years, and pay a tine not exeeedinj^ one thou- sand dollars. Skction r)S14. Any jiorson wlio shall vend or keep for sale any poods, merchandise, niixtiiie or preparation, upon which any forped or eountorfeit stamps. l)rands. im[)rints. wrappers, lahels, or trach'marks he jilaced or affixed, and intended to repre- sent the said poods, merchandise, mixture or preparation, a.s tlie true and peiniine poods, merchainlise. mixture or prepara- tion of any person or persons, knowinp the same to he eounter- feit, shall he punished hy a line not exceedinp our luiiidr('(l dollai's. Sections 6922. 602»i. are directed to the protection of casks, harrels, kep.s, hottles and hoxes. used in tlie handlinp of soda water, mineral water and other ])everapes. Sections :i7)4\K I);')"):^ relate to the prf)tection of the lahels of trade unions and their registration with the Secretary of State. FORM OF APPLICATION FOll UKGISTRATION. Ccrtificnto aooompanyinfj a trademark or lalx-l. filed in acoordance witli thf j)rovisi<)nH of the laws of the State of Nel)rasku. The said trademark or lahel has been or is iiiteii(h-(l to lie ajipropriatod for use in connection with . The size and style of type and tlie color of ink and niaterisil on wliich the Bame in used may he varied at pleaH\ire. It is usually applied hy naintinjf or stencilin;;, or hy lahels, or hy forming; it in. or on cast- inj/g . It is also used in advertisements, on letter heads, in jnvoic«'8 and in other printed matter. The said trademark or lahel has heen in use since , and con- ttists of the arliitrarilv «elect4d mark or character herewith illustrated: I, , do herehy declare that the fticfiimilr/i, copies or counter- parts filed with the forejfoinf,' certificate are true and correct. In witness whereof, I have hereunto si^rned my name this day of . 10—. NEVADA STATUTES. 723 State of - C'ounlv i)f , Ix'inp firnt duly HWorn dcpoRCB and nayn tliiit tin- iiiiiti>r- and factH ahovf Htatod arc tnn- hh In- verily l»cliev«'K. Witiii'HH niv liiiiid iind stiil tliin duv of , 1!) — . NEVADA. AN ACT to protect persons, assoeiations and unions of workinj^men and others in tlieir laliels, trademarks and forms of advertising^ and to provide a penalty for tlu- violation of tln' provisions of this act. (.•\pI)roved March -I'.K 1!»07.) Tlic pco})h of the State of Xrrada, represented in Senate and A,■ imprisoinnent for not less than twenty da>s nor more than one year. Section' :] Tlu^ use liy any person en^Mntial f>alur.' of which . the State of , County of , bs: I, , lioing first duly sworn, depose and say that T am applicant herein, and make this afiidavit and verification in l)ehalf. That 1 have read the ahove and foregoing apjilication and know the contents thereof, and that the facts set out therein are true; that naid so filing said has the right to the use of the same and that no other jierson, firm, association, union, corporation or organiza- tion has tlM- right to s»ich use, either in the identical form or in any such near n-seuildance thereto as may he calculated to dec<'ive. and that the two copies, counterparts or facsimiles, filed herewith, are true and correct. {Sign here]. SubBcrihed and sworn to hefon- me this day of , H> ■ t Fw, $1.00, cncloBcd. • N'KW JIUSKV STATUTES. 727 NEW J HUSKY. I.awrt iS'.tS. Cliiiptcr .')(». AN ACT to provide for tlic n'j,'iHtratii»ii of IuIicIh, tradi-markH, t«TmH and (icHij^iiH, and protect and wcure tlif rij.'litH, jirojxrty and intol, trniloniark. tonn or (l«'si«ls, waivs. inorchaiMlisf or prodiu't ol" lal)or and pul upon llu' luarkt't. for sale or otlitrwi.si". and licforc any nsr or appro- priation of any sui'h label, traiiciiiark. ti-riii or (Icsi^rn has hvon math' in roniifction with amy snch floods, wares, merchandise or product of lahor. as well as .ifter the same has heen used or applied to (h'sifrnate, make known or di.stinj:uish any such poods, wares, merchandise or |tri)diict of lalMir and they have lieeii put upon tiie market. Skction :?. Any jierson. association, orpani/ation or corpora- tion tliat has heretofore adopted and used, or shall hereafter adopt and use. any lahel, trademark, term or design as heroin provided, may file the same for registry in the office of the Secretary of State by leaving two copies, fac-similes or counter- jiarts thereof, with the said Secretary, and filins? therewith a statement in the form of an affidavit, suhscri])od and sworn to by any such person, or by any officer, ajrent or attorney of any such association, organization or cori)oration, specifyinp: the j)(>rson, as.sociation, organization or corporation l)y wliom. or on whose behalf, any such lal)el. trademark, term or (h'sipn is filed, and the class or character of the proods. wares, merchandise or product of labor to wliich the same has been, or is intended to be, appropriated or api^lied. and that the person, association. organization or corporation .so filing the same, or on whose behalf iho same is so filed, has the ripht to the use of said lahel, trade- mark, term or design, anerson, association, organization or corporation that has adoi)te(l and tiled, or caused the same to be done as afore- said, any such label, trademark, term or design; which action may be commenced by suiiunons as in ordinary cases, and shall lie proceeded with therein as ordinary cases in said court; and in case any execution shall be issued upon any judgment ob- tained against the defendant or defendants in any such action and the same be returned unsatisfied, the court, on application ami two days' notice to the defendant, may award an execution to take the body of the defendant or defendants as in other cases where a capias may issue out of the circuit or supreme courts of this state; and thereafter the rights, remedies and liabilities of tiie parties, and the proceedings in the case shall 7:U AIM'ENPIX K. l)o tlu> siiiiK'. or as nearly as may Itr. as in other actions in said I'Oiirts where an execution to take the boil;,' of the (lefenchinl or ili'feiHlanls lias been issued; and it shall bo the duty of tlio I'ourt in which any siu-h action may be l)rou^'ht to make all proper and noi'ossiiry orders to restrain and pi-event any dei'eiidaid or de- ftMidants from continuin«_' the connnittini: of .my violation (»f any of tlu* ])rovisions of this act. Skction 11. In an\' suit or pi-oceedin^' in equity. oi- in any action at law. l)rouii-t i;it i..ii ..f (i iidr naini's, t r;iil<- iiiiirk- jukI lahcls. Ji< it rnarlnl bil tlit Lcfjislatirr Assmihhi of tlir Territory of Xcic Mexico: SKcnioN 1. Any jxtsoii or persons, linn, corporation or asso- ciation who nianuriicturc or deal in articles of a comniercial luitniv and wish to retain the exclnsivo right to the use of a trach'-nanie. tra(h--inark or hihel, shall iiiak.' a dcscrii)tion of the same in writing, accompanied hy a fac-slmilr of such tra. Any person or persons, firm, corporation or as.so- eiation violatini; the provisions of sections '.\ or 4 of this a<*t shall be deemed pnilty of misdemeanor and shall he suh.ieot to a fine in a sum not less than .^50. 00 nor more than $200.00 for each offense, at the discretion of the court, togetiier with dam- ages as they may appear. Section fi. The provisions of this act, in so far as tliey may be applicable, are hereby (>xtended to any person or persons, firm, corporation or association, who may have reiristered a trade-name, trade-mark or label in <:o()d faith prior to the pas- sage of this act, and this act shall be in force and effect from and after its passage. Chap. 24, Laws 1005. Approved March 2, 1905. No official form for application. NEW YORK. Lawa of 1 '.»(»!». i-haptcr 0. Section 48. Manufacturer's brand op cheese. Every manufacturer of full-milk cheese may put a brand or label upon such cheese indicating "full-milk cheese" and the date of the month and year when made; and no p(M'son shall use such a brand or label upon any cheese made from milk from which any of the cream has been taken. The Commissioner of Agri- culture shall procure and issue to the cheese manufacturers of the state, on proper application therefor, and under such regu- lations as to the custody and use thereof as h(> may prescribe, a uniform stencil l)rand or labels bearing a suitable device or motto, and the words "New York state full-cream cheese." \I\V V()1{K STATI'I'KS. 739 Every such lirinxl oi- lalicl sliall lio used upon llif oiitsido of the cliccsc iiiid sliall hear a (lillcn-rit iiiiiiiliri- lor cadi separate factory. TIk' coiiiiiiissioiu'r shall keep a hook, in wliicli shall ])(' i'('<;ist('n'(l the name, location and /luiiihcr of each inainifac- tory usiii^' the hi'aiids oi- lahels, and the name ov names of the I»ersons at each manuractory aiithori/.ed to use the same. \o such hrand or lahels shall he used upon any other than full-milk cheese or packages containin<^ the same. Section 49. Use op false brand rKoiiiniTKi). No person shall offer, sell, or ex|)ose for sale, i?i any packas^e, hutter or cheese which is falsely hranded or lahelcd. Section 50. Coitnty trademarks. At a regular or special meeting of a county dairymen's association in any county of the state there may Ix; adopted a county trade mark, by a ma- jority of the mem-})ers present and votincr, to he used as a trade mark ])y a person manufacturing pure, unadulterated butter or full-milk cheese in such county. The secretary of the associa- tion shall forthwith send to the Commissioner of Agriculture a copy of such trade mark, which copy he .shall i)lace on file in his office, noting thereupon the day and hour he received the .same. Hut one county trade mark for hutter and for cheese shall be placed on file for the same county. No association shall adopt any trade mark in any county already on file, or use that of any other county in the formation of a trade mark. Section 51. Ob.ject and intent of this article. This ar- ticle and each section thereof are declared to be enacted to pre- vent deception in the sale of dairy products, and to preserve the public health, which is endangered by the manufacture, sale and use of the articles herein regulated or prohibited. Section 52. Penalties. Every person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit to the people of the state of New York the sum of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars for the first violation and not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars for the .second and each subsequent violation. When such vio- lation consists of the manufacture or production of any pro- hibited article, each day during which or any part of which "JO APPKNI>I\ K. sui-li Jiinnufai'turc or |tr(Mliictioii is iMirii-d on or coiitiiiuoil, slinll 1)0 tltHMurd a separate violation. When tlu' violation con- sists of tlu* sale, or tlif ofTcrintr or I'xposin^: for sale or oxchnnge of any prohiltited article or snhstanec, the sale of each one of several pai'ka«:es shall constitiite a separate violation, and each tiny on which any such articK- or s»il)stan('e is otTer(Ml or exposed for s;de or exchange shall constitute a separate violation. When the use of any such article or suhstaitce is prohibited, each day durinfj whieh or any part of \vhi<'h such article or substance is so used or furnishetl for use. shall constitute a .separate viola- tion, and the furnisliinfj of the same for nse to each person to Avhoni the same may be furnished shall constitute a separate violation. 1 Chapter lir», jjiws of l!)()0, contains the follow in«; sections: SkcTION 'MiU. Tli \I»1-M AICKS O.V I'.OTTI.KS. SHMIONS. TI.NS (IK KEGS. Any peiNon or corporation en.L'a<:ed in malace of business is situated, or if such jjcrson' or corporation shall manufacture or bottle out of this state, then in any county in this state, and also in the office of the Secretary of State, a description of the nanre, marks or devices so nsed by him or it. and cause such description to be |»rinted once in each week, foi- three weeks suece.ssively, in a newspaper published in the county in which said notice may have been filed as aforesaid, except that in the boroughs of .Mardiattan and Brooklyn in the city of Xew York, such pulilication sliall be made twice in each week for tliree weeks successively in two daily newspa|ters published in such boroughs, respectively, and he shall thereupon be deemed the proprietor of such name, mark or device and of every vessel or receptacle upon which it may be branded, stamped, engraved, otchr-d, blown, impressed (u* otherwise produced. m:\v vt'KK sr\'ri'n:s. 741 Skctiox ;?(■>!. Ti;\i>i;m \i{KS ox otiikk vhticf.fs. Any [icrson or cnriioi-iitinii cii^'a^'cd in niamir.ict iiriiij.', frt'c/iii^'. preserving' or selling it"*' fi'oani, eont'ectionery. ehariotle russe, cakes and jellies, with his or its name, or other marks or devices, hranded, staiiii>er beverages, or with medicine, medical preparations, perfumery, oils, compounds or mixtures, any bottle, box, siphon, tin or keg so marked or distinguished as aforesaid, with or by any name, mark or device, of whieli a description shall have been filed and published, as provided in section three hundred and sixty, or to deface, erase, obliterate, cover up or otherwise remove or conceal any such name, mark or device thereon, or to sell, buy. give, take or otherwise dispose of or tratfic in the same without the written j'onsent of, or unless the same shall have been purchased from the person or corpora- tion whose mark or device shall be or shall have been in or upon the hottle, box, siphon, tin or keg so filled, trafficked in, used or handled as aforesaid. Any person or corporation of- fending against the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished for the 742 APPENDIX F. first otTciisc l»y iiiiprisoiuiifiit fitr not less than ten days nor more than onf year, or Ity a tino of Ht'ty cciits for each and every sinh hottU-, hox, .si|)hon. tin or kc^ so fiUed, sohl, ased, disposed of. houjrht or tranicked in, or by hoth such Ihw and injprisonnient. anil for cadi sMhsc<|U('nt olTcnsc hy imprisonment not less tlum twenty days nor more than one year, or hy a fine of not h'ss than one dollar, nor more than live dollars, for each and rvt-ry huttlc. hox. siphon, tin or kcii so filled, sold, used, disposed of. hoM'jht or trafTicked in. or hy hoth such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the niasristrate before whom tlie offense shall he tried. 2. Tt is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person or corporation to nuikc use of. for similar or other jiiirposes. any .such freezers, cans, blocks. moMs. trays, bricks, pans, tanks, pails. keoons, cutlery, ghtss. china, chairs, tables or signs, a descrip- tion of the names, nuirks uv devices whereon has been so filed Ni:\v voiv'K- sTATi ri:s. Ti;! niul pii'ilislicil ;is ;i I'oi'csaitl, ;iit lirinir milawfiilly used ff>r similar or oIIm'C [iiii'posos, or tlial any junk' ilcalcr or dealer in seeond-liaiid aitides. op an\' ollii'i- person oi- corixiratiori, has anj' such ar-tiilc as naiiicd and desciiltcd liciciii, in his or its possession, of scrrdrd ill any place, the said iiiajristrate nnist tliereiipon issue a search uaiTaiit to discover and ol)lain tlic same, and may also cause to he hruiiLdit hcfore him the person in wliose possession such artich-s as named and dese.rihed lierein may he round, and shall tlien in(|uire into the eireunistance.s of such possession, ami if such mah)wn. impressed or otherwise marked thereupon, and he sliall thereupon he (K'eiiu'd the pro- prit tor of such iiam«\ trade-mark, hihel or otlier private mark. The Secretary of State shall deliver to sueli person or corpora- tion so filinf? the same, a eertilieate undi'r the seal of the rcconl of sueh lalii'l, trade-mark or otlier |)rivate mark. Any pi-rson or corporation so filin*? said description, siiecimcn or fac-simile may puhlisli tlic same once a week for at least three weeks suc- cessively in a newspaper pu!)lished in said county, except in New York and Kinirs counties, where such pulilication shall be for the same leiiiith of time daily in two newsjiapers therein. Such a certificate granted by the Secretary of State under this act and proof of publication as aforesaid shall be jirima facie evidence of the ownership and use of the trademark and label by the persons therein named, in any actions under this statute. Such certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the ownership and use of any label or trade-mark therein described by the person therein named in any prosecution or action under any of the statutes of this state, where proof of such ownership and use is necessary, and in any action or iiroceediiifr brought for the purpose of recovering damages for the violation of .said trade-mark or of preventing infringement thereof. This stat- ute, liowcver. .shall not be construed as preventing the proof of any sucli label or trade-mark and the use thereof in any lawful manner in use prior to the passage of this act. The Secretary of State shall not record, register, or file any label, trad<*-mark or other private mark identical witii (»i- similar to anv other label, trade-mark or other private mark theretofore filed or registered as abovi' proviibil as would be calculated to deceive, unless it shall be proven to his satisfaction that the person or corporation lastly api)lying for the registiy of sueh label, trademark or other private mark sh;ill be entitled thereto. Ni:\v YouK sTA'n'KS 747 ami the I'if^litfiil ow iici- llicrcot" hy pi'ior ailoptioii ; in wliifli case tlic intf therefor. The supreme court may also, in an action hruught for that purpose hy any person aggrieved therehy against any person who ha.s already filed or registi'red any such label, trade-mark or other privati- mark, direct the revocation of any such registration where it shall determine that the person wlio has already registered the same is not the riuhttul owner of any such label, trade-mark or other private mark. No person other than such proprietor of such label, trade-mar-k or- otiici- private mark which has been filed in the office of the Secretary of State and in the office of the county clei-k, as aforesaid, .shall sell, keei) or offer for sale in, from, or out of, or fill, place or put into, any vessel, box. package, bottle or receptacle on which any such names, labels or iirarks in any maimer appear, aird w bile so branded, .stamped, labeled, blown, impressed or marked, any article or substance other than the original contents placed therein l)y the proprietor of the label, trade-mark or other private marks thereon, or sell, keep or offer for sale any article or substance in. from or out of, or fill, or place or put any article or substance into any vessel, box, package, bottle or receptacle on which .said label and trade-mark in any manner app<'ars or whicli shall bear or liave branded, stamped, labeled, blown, impressed or otherwise marked thereon, any imitation or counterfeit of any such la])el, trade-mark or other private mark so filed in the office of the Secretary of State and county clerk as afor(«,aid. Xo person other than such proprietor in such ca.ses where filing and pub- lication is made as aforesaid, .shall remove, deface or o])literate any device, l)i-arid, stamp, mar-k, name, trade-mark or other private marks impressed, stamped or lilown into the substance of which any vi^ssel or receptacle is composed, without the writ- ten permission of such proprietor or unless there has been a T4S AlTKNhlN K. salo to such person of sucli vessel or reeeptacle exclusive of thp contents thereof hy sueh proprietor. No person other than sueh proprietor shall, without his pernii.ssion, use. trafTie in, |»urchase, sell. tlisp(vs«> of. conviTt. uuitilfift'. destroy or wilfully or unrensonnhly refust> to return or deliver to such proprietor on tlenuuul. mii\ sueh vessel or reeeptaele helonjriuf? to such proprietor, whieh is hranded. stamped or niark«'d ])y having any sueh registered design, device, name or mark blown in or impre.ssed into the substance of which the ves.sel or receptacle i.s composed or sell or dispose of any such vessel or rect'ptaele without obliteratinackagca. • S;ful iiiamifacturc, use, «lispla)' nr sale as may lu* pnivcd. top'tlu-r with tin- profits (Irrivcd tlu-rcfroin. l.nws nf I'.Ml'.t, ,liii|.t. Fai^^k lauki^*^. A porsmi uIki. with intiMit to d«>frau (piality or }rrade thereof is rerpiired l)y law to be marked, bramled. or otlierwise indicated on or with such article ; or 2. Sells or ofl'ers for sale an article, wliich to his knowledpre is falsely descrilied or indicated upon any such packajje, or vessel containing the same, or hihel thereupon, or jiny of the particulars specified ; or 3. Sells or exposes for sah- any ^'oods in hulk to wliicli no name or trademark shall he attached, anil oially or otherwise represents that such goods are the manufacture or j)roduction of some other than the actual nuuuifacturcr or producer, in a ease where the punishment for s\ich ofTense is not specially provided for otherwise !iy statute, is truilty of a misdemeanor. Section 436. Using f.vi^jk mauks as to manikactihi:. A person who, with intent to defraud or to enable another to defraud any person, maiuifactures or knowingly .sells or causes t(» !)e mainifactiire deenieil to be affixed to an arti<'le of merchandise when it is placed in any maimer in, or upon : 1. The article itself; or, 2. A box, bale, barrel, bottle, case, cask, platter, or other vessel or packap:e. or a cover, wrapper, stopper, brand, label or other thinp: in, by or with which the ffoods are packed, inclosed or otherwise jirepared for sale or disposition. Section 2352. Artici>e of merchandise defined. The ex- pi-es.sion "article of insentation as to the person by wliom sneli arti<-le of merchandise or the material thei-eof was madi". or was in whole or in part i)rodueed, manu- factured, finished, processed, treated, marked, packed, bottled or l)o.\ed, or falsely represents that such article of merchandise or the material or any part thereof has or may properly have ;iny trade-mark attached to it in connection with it, or is or jnay properly be indicat(>d or identified by 'any trade-mark, Is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable for the first offense by a fine not less than fifty dollars nor more than five lumdred dollars or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment, and for each subsequent offens<' by iuiprisonnieiit for not less than thirty days or more than one year, or by both such im[)risonment and a fine of not less than five hundred dollars or more than one thousand dollars. Si:cTi()X 2. This act shall take effect September first, nine- tee)i lumdred and fourteen. Skction 2355. Ri:Fn.LiNO or set,ltng trade-mark botti.e!^ AND VESSELS. Anv person en^ajred in making, bottling, pack- ing, selling or disposing of milk, ale, beer, cider, mineral water or other beverage or in making, selling, or disposing of articles of pastry, may register his title as owner of a trade-mark by filing with the Secretary of State and the clerk of the county where the principal place of business of such person is situated. a description of the marks and devices used by him in his busi- ness, and in ease same has not been heretofore published according to the laws existing at the time of publication, causing the same to be published in a newspaper of the county, three weeks daily, if in the city of New York or Brooklyn, and weekly if in any other part of the state; but no trade-mark shall be filed which is not and can not become a lawful trade- mark, or which is merely the name of a person, firm or corpora- APPKN'PIX 1'. tinn unnoooiupnniod l«y a inark sn(Tici(Mit to tlistiufriiisli it from the same naiiM> wlu'ii iisoil In another iii'i-son. After such repistration. tlie use without th»' eonseiit of the owner of the trade-mark so (leseril»e'l or the lilliMir of any hotth'. siphon, barrel, platter, vessel, or thinj; for the purpase of sah>, or for the sale, therein. (»f any article of the same general nature and (luality which said hottle. siphon, harrcl. platter, vessel or other thinjr before contained, without the obliteration or defacement of the tra', and the ofTendcr shall also be liable to an action on the NKW VOKK STATITES. 755 case t'of tlaiiiafi'S. t'or siidi w I'oii^rnl use of siicli t radi'-iiiiirk at tlir suit of tlir owiM'c tlicrcof, ami flic party ajrf^ru.'vcd, shall also have his pciikmIv accordiii}^ to tlif course of ('(jiiity to enjoin the u roii'jriil use of his trai, 2!) N. Y. St. 110. For rurllier rulirij,'s under that section see MuUins v. I'cople, 2.i Ilow. I'r. 12S!), 24 X. Y. 390. rcoi>le V. Catuion, 130 N. Y. 32, 34 X. K. Kep. T')!). Chapter 21!), l^aws 1803. relates to the protection of lahels of unions or a.ssoeiations of workinprnien. and i)rovides a penalty for selling ci. 181. ina(l<> it unlawful to usr l)ox«'s. Itottlcs. and other pa«'kam's liaviiiu tli«' nwiifr's nainr. or orlur marks or devices, "lirandcd, stampcii. t-nnraveil. eti-lh-d. Iilown. iiiipressed. or otlu'rwise pnidurcil upon surh Itottlcs.'" dc It was lirld that the use of hottles hearing' iitho^'rapliic hil)els eontainiuf; the name of another was not a violation of this aet. I'roplf V. Klfriihcin, 20 N. Y. Supp. MM. A section of the same act makinjr it a misdemeanor to relill registered stamped hottles of the manufacturers of soda water, ami the like, was held to apply only to dealiujx in empty bottles after the orijrinal contents had l)een removed. I'roplc v. Cannon, VV.) N. Y. :'>•_'. :U N. K. Kei>. 7r.!>. ruder the Laws of 1S()2, chap. ."^00. sor. A, aiul the Laws of IHiVA. chap. 2(>!». sec. 2, relating' In the use of false stamps, labels, or tradenuirks, and providing a jtenalty therefor, it was held essential to a recovery of the penalty that the fraudu- lent intent of the derendant be shown. IjOic r. flnU, 47 N. Y. 104. Under the I'nion Label Act. Laws 1>a!i:?. chap. 219. certain evidence is review»'d and held not sufficient to sustain a judg- ment for plaintilT in Hi'fffitis r. Dnl.in. X] \. Y. Supp. S!)0, 86 Ilun. 4(il. Laws of 1887, chap. 'Ml, amended by Laws of 1888, chap. 181, relatinc: to the registration of marks used on bottles, it is re(piired that the certificate filed with the county clerk, describ- infr the names, marks and devices used on the bottles be certified. Conscfpiently. such a description is admissible in evidence, thoutrh defi-ctively acknowledLreil. I'loplr v. Hurtholf, GO Ilun. 02(i, 20 X. Y. Sui.p. 7S2. Penal Code, sec. 'M\\ prohibits the sale, from a refilled package bearinjj a tra/lemark, of goods made by original producer of the package. People v. Luhrs, 89 X. E. Rep. 171. lit.") X. Y. 377, affirming judgment. Ill X. Y. S. 749, 127 A pp. Div. (i.U. I'nder sec. 'Mu , fJeneral Business Laws, the newspaper publi- cation of the mark is not n^fpiired to sii|>port the recovery of a penaltv for refilling tradci.iarked bottles. John Jameson tl- Son V. Ii'e'ilhf, \'y:i X. Y. S. 22.'). !M) .Misc. Hep. .S18; aonlon Dnj Gin Co.' r. lidlly, Ifj.'i X. Y. S. 226. FOllM i>l'' AI'I'LK ATION KoR KKi : ISIi:.\ Tl< )\. T'j the firrrrtnry nf fitah <-/ thr Stnti' of \rir VorA ; In (ompliniuM- witli tin' r«HpiirinnntH (.f Article Jt <>f Chnpttr 2'k of the I^wK of I'.tO'.J. roiisliHitin;,' CliaptcT 20 of tin- ('oii«oIiix f. labor thnt liavo boon or may bo wliolly or partly mado. inami- fai'turotl. prodnceil, prepared, packed, or put on saU' by any suc'b person, or to or upon wbieli any work or labor ha.s been applii'tl or expended by any sueh person, or by any member of any eorporation tliat lias adopte«l and filed for registry any sueh label, trademark, tern), or desipru as aforesaid, or announc- inp or indieatinj; that the same have been iiiadc in whole or in part by any such person or corporation, or by any ineinbcr thereof. 0003. c. 271.) Suction .\0V^. Pkoim^kty r.KiiiT.'^ protectkp nv rn.iNc; for RKGiSTKY. Whenever any person shall adopt and iil<- lor registry any label, trademark, term, or design pursuant to the pro- visions of this chapter, the property, privileges, rights, remedies and interest in and to any such label, trademark, term, or design, and in and to the use of same. i)rovided or fjiven by this chapter to. or otherwise conferred upon or enjoyed by, the person filinp the same for the registry, shall be fully and completely secured, preserved, and protected as the property of those entitled to the same before any .such label, trademark, term, or dcsi^in has been actually applied to any prood.s, wares, merchandise, or product of labor, and j)ut upon the market for sale or otherwi.se, and I)efore any use or approjiriation of any sueh label, trademarlv. term, or desifrn has ])een made in connection with any such ^oods, wares, merchandise, or product of labor, as well as after the same has been used or applied to desi<;nate, make known, or distiiiiruish any such jroods. wares. merchandise, or product of lal)or and they have been put upon the market. (1903, c. 271, s. 2.) Section 8014. Filkd with Secretakv of Statk; AFFin.vnT; FEE.*^. Any person who has heretofore adopted and used, or shall hereafter adopt and iisr imy hihel. tradeni;irk. term, or desi^'ii, as in this chapter provided, may file tlie same for rej,Mstry in the office of the Secretary of State, by leaving: two copies, fac-siviiUs or counterparts thereof, with tlie said secretary, and filintr tlierewith a statement in th( form of an aHidavit, sub- scribed and sworn to by any such piM'son. oi- by any officer, apent. or iitlorney if a corporation, specifying'- the jierson by whom any such label, trademark, term, or desi calculati'd to dceeivo, or that woulil hv lialtlc to l)o niistakrn tlu'rcfor. (1 !)():?. c. 271, s. 5.) Skctiok nOlS. Pf.katty foh skcmkin*; FKArnn.KNT kkcis- TRATION. Any person who shall fih' or prrxMiri' the filing and repistry of any lal)ol, tradomaik. tirm. or drsi-rn in the office of the Seeretary of State innhT fhi- |irovisions of lliis fhaj>ter, by niakinp any falsr or fraudMh'iit representations or (h'chira- tions. with franduh'nt intent, shall he liahlc to pay any daniafjes sustained in eonseciuenee of any such registry, to he recovered by or in behalf of the party injured thereby. (1*)():{. e. 1*71. s. ;').) Section :U110. Usk of cointfkfkit tkvokmmjks rNi-AWFii-. Wlienever any person has adopted and file(l for refristry any label, trademark, term, or desi«!:n, as provided l>y law. and the .same shall have l)«'en re{;istered pursuant to law. it shall be unlawful for any other person to nuinufaeture, use, .sell, offer for sale, or in any way utter or circulate any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, tradejnark. term, or desijin. or have in possession, with intent that the same shall be .sold or disposed of. any poods, wares, merchandi.se. or product of labor to which or on which any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, trademark, term, or desi'jrn is attached, affixed, printed, stamped, impres.sed, or displayed, or to sell or dispose of. or offer to sell or dispose of. or have in posses.sion, with intent that the same shall be sold or dispo.sed of, any froods, wares, merchandise, or product of labor contained in any box, case, can. or package to which or on which any .such counterfeit or imitation is at- tached, affixed, printed, stamped, impressed or displayed. (lOO.'i c. '271, s. fi.l Section' ^020 T"fNAi^TTioRTZEn ttpe ttnlawful; use ttnder UCp:n«:f. "Whenever any person has adopted and rcpristered any label, trademark, term, or tin, or display of any lahel, trademark, term, or design, or the imitation or counterfeit tiiereof, or the sale, disposal or display of any articles of property on which any counterfeit or imitation of any registered lahel. trademark, term or design, or on which any genuine lahel, trademark, term, or design may be used or displayed without proper authority; and shall further secure and protect all persons in all rights of property and interest which they may have in any lahel, trademark, term, or design registered under this chapter; and the court shall award to the plaintiff any and all damages re- sulting from any such wrongful use of any such label, trade- mark, term, or design; and any counterfeit or imitation of any labels, trademarks, terms, or designs and any die, engraving, mold, or mechanical device for the manufacture of the same in the possession or under the control of the defendant, shall be delivered up to an officer of the court, to be destroyed, and that any such genuine labels, trademarks, terms, or designs in the possession or under the control of any snch defendant shall be delivered to the plaintiff. (1903. c. 271, s. 8.) Sectiox 3022, Addittoxai. pknalty. In addition to any other rights, remedies, or penalties provided by this chapter, 762 APPENPIN F. and as concurrent thorcwifli. any por<;on wlio shall violat*' any of the provisions of this cliaptcr shall he liahh' to a penalty of two huni'T. Any person dealing in tiinluT in any form .sliall Ix' known as a timher dealer, and as •such may adopt a trademark, in the manner and with the effect in this suh-chapter |>rovi(led. {WHY.], c. 'JHl. .s. 1.) SkCTION 3024. How XDOI'TKD, Iv'KGISTERKD AND IM'BLISHED. Kvery sneh dealer desirinu' to adopt a trademark may do so hy the execution of a writin-r in form and efTect as follows: TRADEMARK. Notioo is horoby pivon tliat T [or \vi\ etc.. an the rnsr mnrf hr} have adopted the following trademark. In l)e used in my [or our, etcd busi- I1C88 as timher deah'r [or deahral tn-wit: \flrrr innrrt the words, letters, figures, ete.. ronstitutitifl the trademark, or if it he any deviee other than uords, letters, or figures, insert a faesimile thereof}. Dat.d tills dav of . l!»— . A. . H. . Sufh writinp shall he aeknowlodfred or proved for record in the same manner as deeds are aeknowledtred or jiroved. and shall he registered in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which the principal oflice or place of husiness of sueh timher dealer may he. in a hook to he kept for that purpose marked "Reffistry of Timher Marks." also, in ollfiee of Secretary of State, and a copy thereof shall he puhlished at least once in each week for four successive weeks in some newspaper printed in such county, or if there he no such newspaper |»rint«>d therein, then in .some newsi)apcr of p'ueral circulation in such county. (ISSf), c. 142: 1903, c 2f;i, s. 2.) Section 302.'). PHoi-r.irr'i in; how rsr.u. livery tradenuirk so adopted shall, fn.m the date thereof. I..- the exclusiv.- prop- erty of the i)erson adoptintr the same. The proprietor of such trademark shall, in usine the same, cause it to he plainly stamped, XOKTIl i\l«)l.|N'\ S'I'M'I'rKS. 763 }ir;iii.i(Ml, {»!• otlicfw isf iiiiprcsscd up: to file tho Hamr for nvtini in tin- olVio*- of iUv StH-n-tary of Stat.- «>f tin- Stnto of Nortli i'Hrolinn. »Ii><'h lirrrhv rtTtify; l«»t. Till- niiino of tlio p«THon. lirn> or ior|>oration mi lilinn i« . 2d. The prinripHl oIVut ^eft»r.- mr tlie dav and year aforesaid. ]i(OTF. — Two copies of the trademark or desi;.'n must he filed herewith. Registration fee, $3.10. NORTH DAKOTA. llcv. Codes 1 !»(».-.. Section 41)21. One who produces or deals in a particular thing or conducts a particular l)usiiiess, may appropriate to his exclusive use as a trademark any form, symliol or name which has not been so a[)propriated liy another to desi^Miate tlie origin or ownersliip thereof: hut he can not exclusively appropriate any designation or part of a designation whicli relates only to the name, quality, or the description of the thing or business. or th«' i)lace where the thing is produced or the husines.s is car- ried on. SFXvnoN 402*2. The goodwill of a business Is the expectation of continued public patronage, but it does not include a right to use the name of any jxTson from whom it is acipiired. NOKTII l)\K()T\ STATITKS. TH.'i Section tl'i'.'?. 'I'lic ^'oodw ill of ;i husini-ss is j»r(»j)crty, trans- ferable like any other. Skction r)42(). One wlio sells or a-rrces to sell any article to which there is affixed or attached a trademark, thereby war- rants that mark to be frenuine and lawfully use-d. Skc'tiox r)427. One A\ho sells oi- a^^ni's to sell any article to which there is affixed or attached a statement or mark to ex- l)ress the (|uantity or (|uality thereof or the i)lace where it was in whole or in piirt produced, manufactured or prepared thereby warrants the truth thereof. Section 8006. Kvei-y person who wilfully forges, counter- feits or jirocures to be forged or counterfeited any trademark usually affixed by any person to any goods of such i)erson, with intent to pass olf any goods to which such forged or counter- feit trademark is aftixed or intended to be affixed, as the goods of such person, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section S!)i»7. Every person who, with intent to defraud, has in his possession any die, plate or brand, or any imitation of the trademark of any person, for the purpase of making any counterfeit or imitation of any description whatever of such trademark, or of selling the same when made, or affixing the same to any goods, and selling oi- ofVeriuir the same foi* sale oi* disposal as the orisinal goods of any other per.son, and everj' person who so uses or sells the same, or who fraudulently uses the geiniiiie trademark of another with intent to sell or offer for sale or dis[)osal, ajiy iroods not the goods of the person to whom such trademark i)roperly belongs, as genuine and orig- inal, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 8008. Every person who either: 1. Uses or causes to be used any brand, mark, name, print, designation or description, the same a.s or similar to any re- corded to any other persons, or on tlie place recorded to an- other; or, 2. Uses or causes to be used any second-hand sacks, box, barrel, can, package or other article on which has been placed any hrand, mark, nf.me, print, designation or description, the property of another, for the purposes of deception or profit, is 7Gt) APPENDIX F puilty of a misilomi'anor. aiul upon ('(mvictioii tlicrrof is i»\in- ishalilr l>y finr of not Irss lluin oin" liuntlrcil and not cxcccdinj; ono thousniul dollars. Section Sili'O. Kvcry person who sells or keeps for salo any poods upon which any counterfeit tradcnnirk has lieon affixod, and intondod to n>prt'spnt such f;oods as tlu' genuine fjoods of another, knowinj: the same to ho counterfeited, is pruilty of a niisih'nieanor. Section 9000. ICvery |»erson who. with intent to defraud, affixes or causes to l)e affixed to any poods, or to any bottle, case, hox or other packape containinp any poods, any (h'scrip- tion of hihel, stamp, brand, imprint, jtrinted wrapjx'r, label or mark, which desipnates such poods by any word or token which is wholly or in [>art the same to the eye or to ear a.s the word of any of the words or tokens used by any other person as his trademark, and every person who knowinply sells, or keeps, or offers for sale any such bottle, case, ])ox, or other packape with any such label, stamp, brand, imprint, printed wrapper, ticket or mark affixed to, or upon it. in case the person allfixinp or causinp to be affixed sucii mark, or so sellinp or exposinp or offerinp for sale such bottle, case, box, or other packape, wjis not the first to employ or use such words as his trademark, is puilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor is liable to the party apprieved in the penal sum of one hundred dollars for each and every offense, to be recovered by him in a civil action. Section 0001. The word "trademark," as used in the sec- tions precedinp, include every description of word, letter, de- vice, emblem, stamp, imprint, brand, printed ticket, label, or wrapper usually affixed by any mechanic, manufacturer, drup- pist, merchant or tradesman to denote any poods to be poods imported, inanura<-f ured, prrxlnced. compounded (ir sold l)y him. other than any name, word f)r expression peiierally (h'tiotinp any poods to be of some particular class or description. Section 0002. The word "poods." as used in the sections precedinp. indndes r-very kind of iroods. war(\s, merchandise, eomi)ound or prei);iratiori, which may be lawfully kept or ofTered for sale. NOKTII DAKOTA STATL'TRS. 707 Section 0003. Tho ofTonso of affixing? a falso trademark to goods is equally (■()in{)l('t(' uitliiii llir iii»'aiiiii«; of sections 7'jr>-4:i, ('liiip(ro- ti'ct nianufactiinrs from the use of counterfeiting labels, stamps and trademarks. To all uJtoin it )fiiMTty, and ti) iniiki' sui-li rf;;i(*tc admi^^sihle in evidence in any suit, aefion oi- [)ro- ceedinp in law under this act, and shall he jtrinia farir evidence that the provisions of this act have heen comi)Iied with, and also prima facie evidence of the title of the owner or owners named therein, to the property upon which the name, hrand, design, trademark, device or other mark or marks of ownership of such owner or owners may appeal* as descri!)ed therein. Section I)2K)-4. Section 4. The Secretar\' of State and tlie clerk of the court of common pleas shall each receive a fee of one dollar (^l.(X)) for each statement and certificate of puhli- eation filed, and also a fee of one dollar ($1.00) for each cer- tified copy of such statement and certificate of puhlication. "■J'he sectional numbers on the margin hereof are designated as provided hy law. Timothy S. IToo.vx, Attoniey General. S. J. YiNING, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Hugh L. Niciioi^, President of the Senate. Passed ^Fay 31st, 1911. Approved June 7th, 1011. JuDSON Harmon, Governor. 100 0. L. lOS. AN ACT to amend and supplement section KJKifl of tlie Oencral Code passed April 28, 191.5 (103 0. L. 6r)2). liy onactin;i a new s;ection 131()0,and addinj,' supph mental sections i:51()!)-l, l.'^lti0-2 and l;n(i!)-3 providin<; for the rejjistration of l)ottl('s, siplions. siplion tops, tins, fountain tanks, keps or otlier containers; and makin<; it unlawful for any person, other than the owner thereof, to fill, refill, deal or traffic in such bottles and other containers and to repeal said orijxinal section 13109 of the Geneial Code. 770 APPENnix v. lit H t luiittd Inj tilt' (itncral Aascmblif of the State of Ohio: Section 1. Thut section \'MG\) »)f tli.- nciifral Code ho {iniondeil by onactiiiir a new section l.n and siipplcincMtt'd hy ailtliiijr suppl*'">i''it»' st'ctions l:{l(i'J-l. l;{lGl)-2 ami 13109-3 to rcati as followK: Section L'^HIK Ajiv person, firm or rorporntion onpaped in the niannfaetiiriiif;. hottliii^r. or selling of soda waters, mineral or aerat<'d uatei-s. triri;/er ale, porter, ale. lieer, cidei-. small beer, milk, cream, lajrer ]>eer. weiss beer, white beer, or other beverages, or medicines, medical preparations, perfumery, oils, eomponnds, or mixtures, and usinj; in the manufacture, sale and delivery of th<> same any liottles, siphons, siphon tops, tins, fountain tanks, keprs or other containers, may mark and desig- nate such bottles, siphon, siphon tops, tins, keps and other con- tainers with his or its name or other mark or device branded, stamped, enpraved, etebed, blown, or otherwise produced upon the same, and file in the oflfic(^ of the Seeretar.v of State and also in the office of the clerk of tli(^ courts of the county in which his or its principal place of business is situated a de- scription of such name, mark or device and cause such descrip- tion to be print(>(l once in each week for three weeks successively in a newspaper published in such county. Provided, that if the principal place of business of any such person, firm or corporation is in another state, the filing of such description shall be made in the office of the Secretary of State and also in the office of the clerk of the courts in any county of this state, and jirinted for three weeks successively in a newspaper published in such county. When any such person, firm or cor- [)oration shall have comjilied with the jirovisions of this section, he or it shall thereupon be deemed th(^ proprietor of such name, mark or rlevice and of every such bottle, siphon, siphon top. tin, fountain tank. kei\ k. tion sliall not apply \o an>- i)^^^!)!!, fiiiii or t'<)rp(irati()ii. as to filling or refilling; witli liis (tr it.s protinct any hotth'. siphon, tin, fountain tank, kcj;, or other i-^mtaiurr ount'd l>y or having thf nanir. mark or dt-signation ol" such person, tirin or corpora- tion pursuant to the provisions of this act. w hrn such person. firm or eorp(»ration shall have eoin|)lie(l with the rules and regu- latiojis of the dairy and food division of the Atrrienltural Com- mission of Ohio, relative to the (■leaiisin^' of sin-li hottles. siphons, si|)hon to|is. fins, fountain tanks, keirs. or othei- eontainej*s. Section 1 Ml (!!>-:? Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall he punished for the fii-st olTense hy a fino of fifty cents for each and every such bottle, siphon, siphon top, tin. fountain tank, kercseiit(itife.t. John II. Arnold, Preside tit of the Senate. Passed March 24, 1015. Approved April 2, lit]."). Fkvnk 1'.. Wii.i.is. (iortrnor. Filed in the olTice of the Secretary of State at Columbus, Ohio, on the :{rd ovi' iianu-d, in coinpliniicc witli "An Act" of tin- OfiUTuI Anscnildy of the Stutr of Olii, ( HHi (). I.. lllHi. "to i.n.vid.- f..r tin- r«'j,'iH- tration of l)ottli'H, HJplions Hiplion tops, tiiin, foiintaiii tarikH, kc^jH or other containers, and niakin-,' it unhiwful for any pcrnon otiicr than tin- owner tlu-rcof to fill, nfill, deal or trallic in hwcIi hotth-rt and other eon tainerH and to re|)(al ori^'inal section IHHi!) of the <^;eneral Code, and to make «uch rejjistered mark jirima faeie evidence of ownersliip of prop- erty hearinf,' such mark," lierehy makes application for the re;,Mstra tion in the oftice of the Secretary of State of the State of Ohio and in tlie office of the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of County, Ohio, said havinj; principal place of Imsiness hy filing this written statement or description verified liy affidavit of said mark of ownership used by said , to-wit: By State of , County of , as: , hein^' duly aworn says that he is the of the above named , in whose behalf the fore{;oin<^ application is made; that said has the ripht to use such name, mark or device, and that no other person, firm, association, union or corporation has the rif,'lit to use such name, mark or device either in the identical form or any such near resemblance thereto as may ln' calculated to deceive, and that the description of said mark, name or device is true and correct. Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me, tiiis day of , A. D. 19—. XoTK. — The fee for filing this certificate is one dollar ($1), for each name, mark or device. REGISTRATION OF ^lARKS OF OWNERSHIP ON PERSONAL PROPERTY. Application of of . Ohio, . Witnesseth : That , above named, in compliance with "An Act" of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, passed May .31, 1911. and approved .June 7, 1911 (102 O. L. .■)l:ii. "to i)rovide for the regis- tration of marks of ownership on personal property, and to make such registered mark prima facie evidence of ownership of property bear- ing such mark," hereby makes application for the registration in the 774 APPENDIX F. ortict' of til.' S4Hr«>tHr.v of Slat.- of tli.« SUtc of (Miio niul in tlc! tilVuv of tin" C'l«rk of tlio Court of Conunoti I'Iiil plao.- oi huMiwm , by fllinn tlu8 written Htat«iiU'nt or doHtriptioii v. riH.d li\ iillidavit of said murk of ownership uwd l>y »uid , to-wit: By —J Stat*' of , County of , »8: , Ix'in;; duly sworn says tliat he is the of the above- named , in whos«' Ix'half the forejjoinjj application is made; that naid has the ri^jht to use sucli mark of ownership, and tliat no «»ther p«-rsriet()rshi|) is stamped, engraved, etched, blown in, impressed or otherwise produced upon such kegs, casks, barrels, boxes, siphons. l)ottles or any other vessels for containers, may file in the oflice of the Secretary of the Territory of Oklahoma a fac-simile or description of the name or names, marks or devices, so used by such manufacturer or dealer in any such wares herein enumerated and cause such description to be published in a public newspaper published at th<' caf>ital of said territory for two successive weeks and the fact of so filintr and causing to be recorded oy said Secre- tary of the Territory of Oklahoma and nublisbintr shall operate as a trademark, entitlintr the said manufacturer to the sole and (>KI,\II()M.V STATUTES, M-) oxcliisivc use ill ( )kliili()iiia Territory of .sui«l iimrk, naiin! or (li'vicc. Section GT'Jl. Kvory siicli porson, assooiation m- union tliat has Iicrctororc adopted or use(|. oc shall hereafter adopt or use, a lalx'K trademark, term. desit,'ii. device or form of advertisn- meiil as provided in section 1 of this act. .shall file the >-ami' for record in the otTice of the Secretary of the Territory of Okla- homa, hy leavini,' tvo co|)ies, coiiiiter|)ai'ts or t'ac-similes thereof with said soeretary. and liy Tiling' therewith a sworn application speeifyinjr the name and names of the person, association, or union on whose hehalf such lahel, trademark, term, design, device or form of advei-tisement shall he tiled, ha.s the right to the use of the same; that no other ix-rson, firm, association, union or corporation lias the right to such use, either in the identical I'orm or in any such near resemblance thereto as may l)e eatculatiMl to deceive, and that the fac-simile or counterparts filed therewith are true and correct. There shall he paid for such filing and recording a fee of one dollar. Said secretary shall deliver to such person, association or union so filing or causing to he filed any such lahel, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement, so many duly attested cer- tificates of the recording of the same as such person, associa- tion or union may a'pply for, for each of which certificates said secretary shall receive a fee of one dollar. Any such certificate of record shall, in all suits and ])rosecutions under this act, be sufficient proof of the adoption of such label, trademark, term, device, or form of advertisement. Said Secretary of the Ter- ritory shall not record for any person, union or association any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement that would probably be mistaken for any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement. Note. — No official form of application is provided. 771") ai-i'i:ni»ix r. OKE(JON. ('lia|it«i "."T. I-iiNvs I'M I. AN ACT to provi.lr for tlu> r.-^'iHtrutioM l.y any piTHon. partiuTrtliip. firm or private rorpt>ration (h-hiriiij; tti wfurc witliin tin- Stat«' of Orfjion thi- .xoluHivi- uw of nuy tratWnmrk ; to provid. for tin- nj-iKtrntioii of huoIi tradi-mark* with tlw Sccntary of Stat«' and ff«'H to !.<• (•liHr;;<. »5(l.')ti. en:)?, ••()■')« and ftO.V.t, of Lord's Hnj^on LawK. Be it oiactrd h\i fhr People of the Stnte of Oregon: lie it funrieil h'l the Lnjislntive Assembly of the State of Oregon: Section 1. "Traokmark" definf-d. A "tradomark" is a mark used tn iiulicato the niakor, owiior, or seller of an article of meix'handise and iiiclud.'s. iiiiutiii: ntlier thin<:s. any name (d" a pei^on. parttiership, firm, or private corporation, or any letter. word, device, emblem, fifjure. seal, stamp. i)rand. wrapper, ticket. .stopper, label or other mark, lawfnlly adoi)ted by him. and usually affixed to any article of merchandise to denote that the .same was imported, manufactured, produced, sold, compounded, bottled, packed or otherwise jirepared by him ; and also a sit?- nature or mark, used or commonly placed by a painter, sculptor or other artist upon a paintiuij. drawinjr, enf^ravin^'. statue, or other work of art to indicate that the same was desiprned or executed by him Section 2. "Affixinc!" offined. A trademark is deemed to }»e affixed to an article of merchanili.^o when it is placed in any maniwr in or upon: (U the article itself; or (2) a box. b.de. barrel, bottle, case, cask, platter, or other vessel or packa^re, or a eov.-r, wrapper, stopper, brand, label, or other thin^' in. by. or with which the poods are packed, enclosed or otlierwise prepared for sale or di.spositif)n. Section :{. "Article of MERCHANmsE" defined. Tlie ex- pression "article of merehandise." a.s used in this act. signifies any poods, wares, works of art. commodity, cdinpouml. nnxture or other jireparation or tbinp, which may be lawfully kept or offered for sale. OIUXiON ST.VTCTKS. / i < Section 4. "T.mita i'lox of th ai)i;mm(k" defined. An "iini- liitiod of lr;i(lciiiiirk'" is thai uliidi so iaf njsonibles a K»*nuin<* tnulciiiark as to tie lik* ly to induce the hdicr that it is ^fcniiinc. whether hy nse of wolds or letter, siniihir in appearance or in soniid, oi' li.v any siirn, devi'-e m- othei- means whatsoever. Six'TioN .') Ai'i'LiCA rioN Foi{ TH.\ni;.M \KK. Any person, part- nership, (inn, or |)rivate corporation desiring' to s(!cure wit-liin the state of Ore^'oii (lie exdnsive ii.se of any trademark for any article of merchandise, shall make a{)plication to the Secretary of State npon a blank fnrnislied for that purpose for the re^jis- tration of sndi trademark, which npplicatioji .shall be accom- panied by particular description or a fac-.simile of such trade- mark as he may desire to nse, and the description of the article or articles of merchandise to whicli such trademark is to be applied. Sl-fTTON T). SlMII.AR TRADEMARKS NOT AIJ.OWED. If there be not already a claim or application filed with the Secretary of State for the same, or a .similar trademark, or a trademark so <'losely resemblin- llir use of words o' lettei-s similar in appearan<-e or sound, or ity any sign, device or other means uhat.soever imitate a trademark filed and recorde 1, upon any article of merchandise for tlir pui-pose of deceptior. o; ju-ofit. ORF'XON STATfTKR. TTIJ shall forfoit to llic use of llic owner of the said trademark so taken or siil)stitute(l tlie property or artiele ui)ori wliieh the same is i)lace(l or used, or the value thereof to he recovered hy said owner in any court having jurisdiction of the suh.ject- niattor. Section 12. Provisions as to cpntTiFicATK of filing trade- mark. The Secretary of State sliall, upon filing' trademark as heroinhefore f)rovide(l. deliver to the person, partnership, firm or |)rivate corporation so filing the same a certificate, under the seal of the state, of the record of such tradenuirk, and article or articles of merchandise to which it is applied. Such certifi- cate ^'ranted hy the Sec-etary of State under this act, and proof of pul)lication as iiereiiihcrore i)rovided. shall he prima facie evidence of the owju-rship of any such trademark therein de- scrihed named in any prosecution or action under any of the statutes of this state, wlicn' proof of such ownership and use is necessary, and any action or proceedinii: Itrou^dit for the i)ur- pose of recovering; damajres for the violation of said trademark, or of preventing infringement thereof. This statute, however, shall not he construed as preventing the proof of any such trade- mark, and the use thereof in any other lawful manner in use prior to the passage of this act. The Secretary of State shall hot record, regi.ster. or file any trademark so similar to any other trademark heretofore filed or registered as would he cal- culated to deceive, unless it should he proven to his satisfac- tion that the person, partnership, firm, or private corporation last applying for the registration of such trademark shall he entitled thereto and the rightful owner thereof hy prior adop- tion, in which case the date of the adoption shall determine the ownership and shall he proven hy affidavits of persons conver- sant with such dates. In case the Secretary of State becomes satisfied after hearing the said affidavits that the person, part- nership, firm, or private corporation last applying for registry is entitled hy priority of adoption to register snch trademark, he shall revoke the first registry' and re-register the same in the name of the person last applying therefor. Any court of com- petent jurisdiction may also in an action brought for that pur- pose by any person aggrieved thereby against any person, partnership, firm, or private corporation, who has already filed 780 Al'l'EKDIX V. or repistorod any sui-li tnuU-inarU, diri'i-t the revocation of any such registration, whoro it shall (U'ti-rmiMr that thi' person who has already n-^'istered the s;nne is not the ri^'htful ownrr of such trailcniark. Skctidn ]'A. TicxniMAKKs iiKUKToroKK ni.r.n. Any pt-rson, partnership, tinn. or private corporation that has heretofore filed under the provisions of law existing' at the time of such filinp shall not he recpiired to atjain file and publish such de- seriptions. to he entitled to the benefits of this act. Section 14. IJicnr to kn.ioin ini'kinckmknt continues. Nothintr in this act shall be construed so as to affect the power of courts of i'(piity to perpetually restrain by injunction the im- proper use of any trademark, which nuiy have been secured by the jirovLions of this act or other jtrovisions of law. Section 1"). Ki:i'i:alixg confi.k^tinc; laws. Sees. 6052, 6053, 6054. 6055. 6056, 6057, 6058 and OO^O of Lord's Oregfon I^aws are hereby repealed. Filed in the ollicc of the Secretary of State, February 18, 1911. APPLICATION TO RKGISTER A TRAnKM.MtK IN TIIK STATE OF ORF.noX. , 10—. To the Secretary of State: , whose place of Imsiness is Street, City of , County of , State of , desiring' to Hccure witliin tiie State of Orejion the boU* and exclusive use of a trademark in accordance with the provisions of "An Act to provide for the registration by any person, partniThhip, firm or private corporation, desiring: to secure within the State of (►re^.'oii. the extluHive use of any trademark. .Ic..' tiled in the ofTice of tlie Secretary of State, Feliruary IS, IHII, herel.y presents this apidication for tlie re^'istration of such traih-mark, d.seril.ed as follows: , a farsimile of wliich is marked '-Exliihit A," hereto attached. This trademark, as slinwn in tlie K.viiiliit. is t.. l.e placed upon tlie f(d- hiwin^' articles of m'Tchandis*-: . And hy reason of priority of adoption of tin- tradtmark lierein d.scrihed and shown in the K.xliil.it liereto attached, the said \nanif of person, partnrrHhip, firm or priviite rorpnriitioii] luTetiy claims tlu- ri;;ht to the Kole ami ..vclusive uw of tlie sani.- within the Stati- of Orepm for the uws and imrpos.H herein stated. A fee of live ($d.OUj dollars pro- OREGON' STATITKS. 781 vidcd l>v law for issiiiii;,' ( t rtilicutc of Rcgiutratiun for muli trudi-iuurk is tciidtrcd licnwitli. jijOTE. — EncloHod with tlu- njiplication Hhould Im- two (2) t-xtru fac- HimiliH (if tradtmark jiriiiti-d. iiiii)rcHH«'d, or niudt- upon tinn, duraliU; jiaptr for attacliiii;,' to tlu- liook of Itccords of 'rrudcinarkH. A ft-e of $5.00 mubt bu bfiit with tlic upplicatioii. APPLICATION TO RKOISTER A TRADEMARK 1 V TIIK STATE OF OREGON. TIUS I'OKM TO HE rSU) WHEN APPLICANT IS A COKI'OUATION. , 10—. To the Secret a r;/ <>f State nf the ff Orrgon, Salnn, Oregon: -, whose place of Imainess is Street, City of , County of , State of , desirinf? to secure within tlie State of Oregon the soh; and e.xchiHive use of a trademark in accordance with the pro- visions of "An Act to provide for the re^iistration by any person, part- nership, firm or ])rivate corporation, desirin^r to secure witiiin the State of Oregon, the exclusive use of any trademark, etc.," fik-d in the olTice of the the Secretary of State, February IS, 1011, Iierehy presents this api)lieation for the registration of such trademark, described aa follows: , a fac-simile of which is marked "Exhibit A," hereto attached. This trademark, as shown in tlie Exhibit, is to be j)laced upon tlie fol- lowing artieU'S of merchandise: . And by reason of priority of adoption of the trademark herein described and siiown in tiie Kxliibit liereto attaciied, the said [name of private corporation] hereliy claims the right to the sole and exclusive use of the same within the State of Oregon for the uses and purposes herein stated. A fee of five ($5.00) dollars provided by law for issuing Certifi- cate of Registration for such trademark is tendered herewith. In witness wiiereof, said corporation lias caused tliis application to be executed in its name by its President and Secretary and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed the day of , 19 — . [Corporate Seal.] , [Scan. , President. , Secretary. Note. — Enclosed with the application should be two (2) extra fac- simUcs of trademark printed, impressed, or made upon thin, durable paper for attaching to the book of Records of Trademarks. A fee of $5.00 must be sent with tiic application. 782 AITKNOIN V. PKNNSVL\ANIA. Art of April 2 J. VMK>, No. 210. AN ACT ann-ndinj; tho tliird wntion of tin- not. ontitl.'d "An net to pro- vide for the rc-j;ii*tration of lalielH. trudiiiuirkH, trailmiinifH, utampit, de»i|tni». dovin-H. »ho|imnrkH, terniH, l.rnndrt, dtrti^'iintionB, deivriptiojiH. vt forniH of ndviTtiHcment, and proti'ot nnd wcurt» the ri^'litH, projMTty nnd intrn-xtH tlu-n-in of tlio pcrHonH, copart- niTHliipH or ror|M>rntionH ndoptinj; nnd filin^j tin- Hamo, nnd pro- viding; jM-nnltifH for tlie violntionn of tin* not," nppn>vi'd the twrntiftli day of .Tiwn-, Anno Domini one tliouHnnd nino linndrod nnd one: w) hh to fnrthor i>n)toot nnd Hcouro the rijjhtH, property and interent of jM-rwins, oorporntionrt or ooi)nrtncrHliiprt ndoptinf; and re>»i»t«'rin;: naid lalielH. trndemnrkH, trndennmos. stnmps, desi^s, dovicTH, HliopniarkH, terms, lirnnds, desi^'nationH, deaoriptionB or forms of advrrtisenient. Section 1. lie it enacted, etc.. That the third section of the act, entithnl "An act to provide for the refjistration of lahels, trademarks, tradenames, stamps, designs, devices, shopmarks. terms, brands. (N'^iu'nations. de.seriptions or forms of advertise- ment, and protect and secure the rights, property and interest therein of tin persons, copartnerships or corporations adopting anor as a pattern for the reproduction of the same: Provided houu V( r. That noth- ing herein contained shall he taken to prohibit the using of such merchandise or products of labor as a pattern for the reproduc- tion of *he same, in individual cases of emergencg repair. And it shall be unlaw fid for amj other person o>- persons, firm, co- PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES. 785 parincrship, or rorporaiion to make any use of sucli la])fl, trade- mark, tradeiianu', tlevieo, sliopnuirk, designation, or form of advertisement, so filed, or any such likeness or imitation thereof, or utter or display the same orally or in any printed or written form in the eonduot of his husiness or in any business trans- action, attached lo merchandise or products of labor, or de- tached from and independent of the same, on invoice, letter- heads, bills, or advertisements, without express consent, license and authority of the person or persons, copartnership or cor- poration, so filing th(> same; and any sneh license, consent or authority may be revoked and terminated at any time, upon notice, and thereafter any use thereof shall be a violation of this act, and subject those violatinfj the same to all the liabilities and penalties herein provided ap:ainst any violation thereof. He shall refuse to file or register any label, trademark, trade- name, device, shopmark, designation, or form of advertisement, identical with, or so similar to as to be calculated or liable to deceive, any label, trademark, tradename, device, shopmark, designation, or form of advertisement, filed or registered, unle-ss it shall be proved to his satisfaction that the person or persons, copartnership or corporation, lastly applying for the registry of such label, trademark, tradename, device, shopmark, desig- nation, or form of advertisement, shall be entitled thereto, and the owner thereof by rigiit of prior adoption; in which case the date of adoption shall determine the ownership, and shall be proved by affidavits of persons conversant with such dates. In the case the Secretary of State becomes satisfied, after hear- ing the said affidavits, that tlie person or persons, copartnership or corporation last applying for registry is entitled to priority of adoption to register such trademark, tradename, device, shop- mark, designation, or foi-m of advertisement, he shall revoke the first registry thereof, and re-register the same in the name of said applying person or persons, copartnership or corporations. To the Secrctari/ of the CommonirraJth of Pennsijlvania : Sir: — In complianoo uitli tlic icquircmciits of an Act of the General Asscmbly of tlie Commonwealth of JVnns.vlvania. entitled "An Act to provide for the rejristration of lahels, trademarks, tradi-names, stamps, desipn^. devices, shopmarks, terms, brands, desi<.'nations, descriptions, or forms of advertisement, and protect and secure the rights, property and inter- 7Sn APPEN'DIX K. r.t tii.nin of tl.o porm.nrt. c.iiiirtmTshii.H or .•orporatiouH adopting' nml tilinj; til.- H«ni.-. and provitlin;? prnultif« for th.- violation of th»« act," npprov.Hl th.- JOtl. .lay of .lun.-. A. 1). 1001. th.- un.l.THiKiud, rosi- a.-nt or .h.itiK l.iiMiu-HH in th.- Init.-.l StuU-H. hftvin^ ht-ri'tofon- adopted or UH.ll. or d.•^.irin^: to adopt or u«.- a . for tlu- purport.-^ providi-d in H«id ait. and d.-sirin^ to tU.- th.- wim." for rword in th.- oHK-f of th.- S«Trt-tary ..f Stnt.- of tin- Stat.- .>f IVnnwylvania. do h.r.-l.y c.-rtify: l^t. Th.- nam.- of th.- p.rs..n or ju-rsonH. .-opartnt-rnhip or i-orp..ra- tion 80 filing'. i» [«7 a corporation give 8tatr under which organized]. 2nd. 11 iH or itt* r.-Hid.-nc.-, l.K-ation or jdat-.' of hiisin.-sH, . :Jrd. Th.- ohiHH of m.-nhandis.-. and th.- particular description of k^mxI* comi>riw-<- appropri- ated .Hh. The lenjjth of tim.-. if any. d\irin;i wiiieli it has been in use [Signature of applicant.] Stat*" of - ("ountv of Personally appeared before me, this day of , A. D. 10—, -, who, beinn duly sworn, accordinjj to law. deposes and says that the statements contained in the forejioinp instrument are tru.-; that tl,p so filin;; sueli , has a ri^'ht to use the same, and that HO other person or persons, eopartn.-rship or corporation, has the right to such us.', either in th.- id.-ntieal form or in any sueli near r«'s.-mhlance thereto as may be cak-uhit.-d to d.-ceive, and that tli.- facsimiles, copies or count4'rpart8 filed henwith are true and corn-ct. Sworn and subscribed Ix-fore m.-. the day and y.ar afor.-said. ss: IS.-al.] \i^ignaturc of affiant.] >,oTE.— Two copi.-s of th.- trad.-mark must b.- fil.d with the applica- tion. The api)lieation its.-lf should not b.- in duplicate. Fee for filing and ..-rtificat.-. two .loUars. KIIUDK ISLAND. C.-n.-ral Laws. \'M)'.K Cliapt.r 100. Public Laws of 1000- 1. Chapter 7:5'>. \N A( T for tl..- prot.-ction of lab.-ls and seals of labor or^mni/alions, usHo.iati..ns and H..ei.-ti -s in tb.- Stat-- of Kiiod.- Island and Provi- dence Plantations. Skc'TION 1. Wlicncvor any person, or any a.s.stH*iati.)n or union of workingnien, hu.s heretofore atl(»pt(!d or used, or .shall here- RIIODK ISLAM) STATl TF-S. 787 after adopt or use, any label, tratlomark, term, desipn, device, or form of advertisement for the purpose of designating', mak- ing known, or distinf^'uishing any goods, wares, merchandise, or other product of labor as iiaving been made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed, or put on sale by such person, or association or union of workingmen, or by a member, or mem- bers, of such association or union, it shall be unlawful to coun- terfeit or imitate such label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of advertisement, or to use, sell, offer for sale, or in any way utter or circulate any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of adver- tisement. Section 2. Whoever knowingly counterfeits or imitates any such label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of adver- tisement which has been filed and recorded in the office of the Secretary of State as hereinafter provided; or knowingly sells, offers for sale, or in any way utters or circulates any counter- feit or imitation of any such label, trademark, terra, design, device or form of advertisement ; or knowingly keeps or has in his possession, with intent that the same .shall be sold or disposed of, any goods, wares, merchandise, or other product of labor to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is printed, painted, stamped, or impressed; or knowingly .sells or disposes of any goods, wares, merchandise, or other product of labor contained in any box, case, can, or package to which or on whicli any such counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, painted, stamped, or impressed ; or knowingly keeps or has in his pos.session with intent tliat the same .shall be sold or disposed of, any goods, wares, merchandise, or other product of labor in any box, case, can, or package to which or on which any .such counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, painted, stamped, or impressed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollai-s or by imprisonment for not more than three months. Section 3. Every such person, association, or union that has heretofore adopted or ii.sed, or shall hereafter adopt or use, a label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement as provided in section 1 of this act, shall file the same for record in the office of the Secretarj^ of State by leaving two eopies. counter- 7S8 APPKNnix F. parts, or Joc:er published in the city of Providence. After such pub- lication said secretary shall deliver to such person, association, or union so filing or causinfj to be filed any such label, trade- mark, term, design, device or forin of advertisement so many duly attested certificates of the recordinjr of the same as such person, association, or union may apply for. for. each of which certificates said secretary shall receive a fee of one dollar. Any such certificate of record shall in suits and prosecutions under this act be sufTicieiit proof of the adoption of such laliel. trade- mark, term, desij^n. device, or form of advertisement. Said Secn-tary of State shall not record for any person, union, or association any laliel. trademark, term, desipri. device, or form of advertisement that would probably be mistaken for any label, trademark, term, desipn, device, or form of advertisement theretofore filed by edinrr three niontiis. In any suit or prosecution under the provisions of this act, the defendant may show that he or it was the owner of such lahel. trademark, term, design, device, or form of advertisement prior to its being filed under the provisions of this act, and that it had been filed wrongfully or without right by some other person, association or union. Section 5. Every such person, association, or union adopt- ing or using a lahel. trademark, term, design, device, or fonn of advertisement, as aforesaid, may proceed hy suit to enjoin the manufacture, u.se, display, or sale of any counterfeits or imitations thereof, and all courts of competent jurisdiction may grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use. display, or sale, and may award the complainant in any such suit dam- ages resulting from such manufacture, use, sale, or display^ as may he hy the said court deemed just and reasonahle. and may require the defendants to pay such person, association or union all profits derived from such wrongful manufacture, use, display, or sale; and such court may also order that all such counterfeits or iinitatioTis in the possession or imder the control of any defendant in such cause he delivered to an officer of the court, or to the complainant, to he destroyed. In all cases where such association or union is not incorpo- rated, suits under this act may he commenced and prosecuted hy an officer or meniher of such association or union on behalf of and for the use of such association or union. Section 6. Any person or persons who shall in any way use the name or .seal of any such person, association, or union, or officer thereof, in and about the sale of goods or otherwise, not heing authorized to use the same, shall he guilty of a misde- meanor, and sliall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than one hundred, dollars. 790 APPENPIX F. Section 7. Tho provisions of this act slioll not nbridpo any ripht.s to any trailciiiarks ^'xistin^r at tlu- tiini' of tho passa^'c of this act, whothor the sann" shall he rt'corded or luit. nor aii\ roniodios or riphts of action otherwise or tliorotofun' cxistiiit; in favor of owners of tradeiiiarks. Section v*^. The district cnurt.s of the several judiciiil dis- tricts shall have jurisdiction o\' all complaints for violation of this act. Skction 9. This act shall take elToet and he in force from and aftor the first day of June. A. I). ll)(H). and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. Chapter (i'JT. Pul). Laws 1898-189!). rehites to the protection of bottles, barrels, ke^s, casks, cans, etc., of manufacturers, bot- tlers, and vendors of soda water, nuneral water, ale, beer, or other licpiids that may be used as foods or beverajzes. or nuvli- cines, perfumery, oils, compounds, etc. Rhode Island' Laws 190!l. chap. 19S. "Of the protection of owners of cans, bottles, and other vessels used in the sale of mineral waters, milk. beer, cider, wine, or other beverajjes and compfiunds" is constitutioiud. State f. Hand lireuiiuj Co., 32 R. 1. 5G, 78 Atl. Hep. 499. ST.VTE OF RHODE ISLAND, ETC. Application, acconipnnvin;.' ii [insert label, trademark, term, 'li siyn, dcviee, or form of advrrtittement as the ease may be\ tiled in accordance with tin* provifiions of Cliapti-r llUi of tin- (Icncral Laws of Hliodc Island, llKiJt. entitled "Of the I'rntfction of Lalu-ls and Seals of Labor Organi/.a- tions." Name of pcrwin. assoj-iation In- apjjropriatcd, . Tin- cHwntial fcatnn- of said [insert label, trademark-, term, deviee, or form of ailvertisement, as the ease may be"] consists of [gire tehat if considered to be the essential feature or features thereof]. Tlic Btyle and size of typo, and color of ink and paper [use the word "may" or the irords "trill not" aa the case may hi \ Ik- varied at pleasure. I, , do hereby di-clare, in accordance witli the provisions of uid Chapter 100 of the fnuiTal Laws of Hhode Island, 100(1. that lia — {have or has] a ri;.'ht to the use of the same referred to in the forepoinp application, that no other person, firm, asHociation, union or corporation has the ripht to such use, either in the identical form or SOUTH o^is^'ssioll. with iiiii-iii that the same shall l>o sold or dis- posi'd of. any ^'oods. warfs. MU'rehandiso or otht-r product of lal»or to \\hi«h or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is printed, painted, .stamped, or impressed; or knowingly sells or dispuses of any j;oods. wares, merchandise, or other jirodiict of lahor containcii in any l>ox. ease, can, or paekape to which or on which any sucli counterfeit or imitation is attached, af- fixed, printed. |)ainfed. stamju'd. or impressed, or knowingly keeps or lias in liis possession with intent that the same shall he sold or disposed of, any goods, wares, merchandise, or other product of lal)or in any box. case or packat;e to which or on wliich any such couiilerrcit or imitation is altaelicd. affixed, printed, painted, stamped, or impressed, shall he punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imi)risonment for not more than three months. Section 3. Kvery such person, association, or union, that has heretofore adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, a label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of advertise- ment, as provided in .section 1 of this act. siuill tile the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State by leaving two copies, connteri)arts or facsimiles thereof with said secretary, and by filing therewith a sworn application specifying the name or names of the person, association, or union on whase behalf such label, trademark, ti'rm, design, device, or form of adver- tisement shall be fileil, the class of merchandise and a descrip- tion of the goods to which it has been or is intended to be a|ipropriat«*d. .stating the parties so filing, or on whose behalf such label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of adver- tisement shall be filed, has the right to the use of the same: that no (»tber person, firm, association, union or corporation has the right to such use. either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as nu«y be calculated to deceive, and that the fdi-sitnilr or counterparts filed then-with are true ami correct, before there shall be any liability to any suit or pro- ceeding for any violation of this act. There shall be paid for such filing and recording a fee of one dollar. Said Secretary of State shall cause a description of stich label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of ailvcrtisemeiit to be published once a week for three successive weeks, at the expense of the appli- SOITII CMJttl.lN \ STATITKS. "!•:{ cant, in soiiio no^vspapor pnlilislif-d in tlio city of Columbia. After siu-li ijiihlicalion said .secretary shall deliver to siieh per- son, as.s of the pa.ssage of this act, whether the same shall be recorded or not. nor any remedies or rights of action otherwise or tlieretofore existing in favor of owners of tradenuirks. Section S. The judici«l courts of the .several judicial dis- tricts shall iiave jurisdiction of all complaints for violatioas of this act. Approved the 24th day of February. A. 1). IDIO. APPLICATION Tn KKCoKl) VNION" LABKL (>U TRADEMARK. .Stat*' of , County of > hh: To thr Rrrrctarj/ of the Htatr i>f South Carolina: l^ [inHCit nav»r „f peruon making the affidavit}, Itoinj; first duly Mwo'rn, on oatli nay, 1 um the [iusrrt prrsou. prrsi,lrnl. Hrrrctartf. or managrr] of the [intirrt namv »f aHSoriation or union of trorkingmrn] and that ( i"" rt namr of asnoriation or union of ,rorhingm,n] Iihh lulopti-d iind .i-'i as .i \inHrrt trhcthrr labrl. trademark, l.rw, drnign, or form of ndr.rtiHrmrul], iirt jTovid.-l by an SOI'TII I)\K<)T\ STVriTKS. 795 Act of tho C,onorn\ Asflomhly of Ihr Stato r»f South f'nrolinft, ontitl<*i\ r. Section .1101. Amv ;iini iili j>t r.-M.ns usiiip snoh union or as- soiMutioM tnulonmrks. Inluls or advortist-nu'iit. wliollior exactly like such Inlu'ls. tradeiuarks or advfrtiscnu'nts or not, if with the intention to. nr likely to, deeeive the publie, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on oonvietion thereof siiall 1h' punished hy imprisonment of not less than ten days nor more than thirty days, or a fine of n(»t less than twenty-five dollars nor inori' tiiaii «»ne Jiundred dollars, or both. Section :niVJ. I'.vrry i»erson who shall ust- any such counter- feited trademark, label or advertisements of suth a union or association, after having been notified that the same is so coun- ti'rfeited, sliail be iruilty of a misdemeanor and on eonvietion thereof shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than ten days nor more than thirty days, or hy fine of not less than twenty-tive dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or both. Sf.ction 'UWA. Every association of workiiifrmen or labor union adoptinj; a label, trademark or advertisement of the kind specified in .section 'WW, shall record the same in the office of th.* Secretary of State by leavinpr two copies of said labels or adver- tisenu'nts with said Secretary of State, wlio shall, under his hand and seal, deliver to the association or union reeordinjj such label or advertisenu'uts a certificate of record for which he shall receive a fee of one dollar. Section '.WM. Every association or labor union adopting a label, trademark or atlvertiseim-nt of tlie kind specified in section :niK) nuiy proceed by suit in any of the courts of the state to ♦•njoin the jinjnufaetur*'. us-4>, display or sale of counterfeits or imitations of such labels, trademarks, or advertisements, and that all courts having jurisdiction of the jx'rsons. and upon satisfactory i)roof of huch wrongful use, shall grant an injunc- tion for such wrongful use of such counterfeits, and shall award the comi)lainant such damages resulting from such wrongful use BR may be proved, and shall recpiire the defendants to pay to the complainant the profits derived from sucji wrongful use. <^)dwill of a business, trademarks aud signs, and of rights created or granted by statute. Section 802. One who prndiiee.«; or deals in a particular thing, or conducts a particular business, may ap[)ro|)riate to liis ex- clusive use, as a trademark, any form, symbol or name which has not been so appropriated by another, to designate the origin or ownership thereof; but he can not exclusively appropriate any designation, or part of a designation, which relates only to the name, quality or description of the thing or i)usiness, or the place where th(» thing is i)rnduced or the business is carried on. Section 13.31. One who sells or agrees to sell any article to which there is atfixed or attached a trademark, thereby warrants that mark to be genuine and lawfully used. PENAL CODE, 1903. Section 421. Every person who wilfully forges, counter- feits or procures to be forged or counterfeited any trademark usually affixed by any person to any goods of such person, with intent to pass off any goods to which such forged or counterfeit trademark is affixed, or intended to be affixed, as the goods of sudi person, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 422. Every person who. with intent to defraud, has in his possession any die. plate or brand, or any imitation of the trademark of any person, for the purpose of makincr any •counterfeit or imitation of any description whatever of such 7ns APPKN'niX K. trHilrmnrk. or of si'llinj; tlif ^\mv wlu-n matlc. or afTixirifr the sanu> to liny jrixMls. and s«'llinj; or olTrrin^ the same f«>r salo or disposal as tlu- original jroods of any othor person. mikI every person who so uses or sells the same, or who fraudulently uses the genuine tradenuirk of another with intent to sell or offer for sale or disposed, any L'Ood'^ not the ^joods of the person to whoii' such tradenuirk properly heloiif/s, jus trenuine and orig- inal, is fjuilty of a misdemeanor. Section 423. livery person who sells or keeps for sale any poods upon whieh any eounterfeited tradenuirk has heen affixed, intended to represent sueh ^oods as the genuine ^oods of an- other, knowinp the same to Ik* eounterfeited, is fjuilty of a mis- demeanor. Skction 424. Every person who. with intent to defraud, affixes or causes to he affixed to any ijoods. or to any hottle. ease, hox or other [iacka<;e containin possession the Uittles are foun«i. to examine into the eireumstanees of his pos- session, ami if suili inaifistrate on snnnmar>' exjinrMUitinn finds that such person has been jruilty of a violation of section 42S, such majristrate shall proceed to im|)oso the fine therein prescribed, and. if the same be not paid, to comniit such j)ersun to j)rison for a term not exeeedinj? tifteen days. ArPMCATIoN KOU KKOISTRA TION' OK TKADK.MAKK. To thr Svrntnrti of Slecificatii>n accompanying' this aflidavit and he peti- tions that the said trademark may lie filed in the olVice of tiie Secretary of State of South Dakota, in accordance with the law in sucli casea made and provided. Subscribed and sworn to before me tliia dav of If) — . yotary I'ltblic. SPECIFICATION'. To nil irhom it may concern : Be it known that the Company of the City of , State of Soiitii Dakota, lieinj: en},'a^ed in the li\isiness of manufacturinn, adver- tisin); and wdlin^ adopted for their use a trademark of which the foUowin^; is a dewription : . The Btyle and si/.e of type atid color of ink and paper may he Miried at pleasure. The trademark has been used in its liusiness since aiiout . The clasH of nierchandim- and the particular ;;oo' person, firm, corporation, or association, or union of \vorkinf?mon that haa heretofore adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, any trademark mentioned and provided in section 1 of this act. may file the same for record in the oflRce of the Secretar\' of State hy leaving; two copit\s, eounterparts. or fac-similes tliereof with said secretary, and by filinp therewith a sworn application, spccifyinp the name or names of the person, firm, corporation, association, or union on whose liehalf such trademark shall be filed, the class of merchandise and a description of the poods to which it has been or is intended to he appropriated, statinp that the party so filinfi. or on whose behalf such trademark shall have been filed, has the ri^'ht to use the same; that no other person, firm, corporation, association, or union has the right to such use, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as may I)e calculated to deceive, and that the fac-simile or counterparts filed therewith are true and cor- rect There shall be paid for such filing: and recording a fee of five dollars. Said secretary shall deliver to such person, firm, corporation, association, or union so filing, or causing? to be filed, any such trademark, so many duly attested certificates of the recording of the same as such person, fimi, corporation, association, or union nuiy ai>i)ly for, for each of which certificates said secretary- shall receive a fee of one dollar. Any such cer- tificates of record shall in all suits and prosecutions under this act be jirima facie evidence of the adoption of such trademark. Said Secretary of State shall not record for any person, firm, or corporation, as.sociation, or union any trademark heretofore filed by or on behalf of any othfr person, firm, corporation, association, or union. Skction .'). Be it further enacted, That any person who shall for himself, on behalf c)f any other person, firm, corporation, association, or union, [)rocure the filintr of any trademark in the office nf the Secretary of State, under the provisions of this ti;nni;ssi;i-; stxtitks. so; act, hy kno\viii<:ly making' any falso or fraiidnlfiit representa- tion or declaration, V('rl)ally or in writing', or by any niearw known to !)(' fraudulent, shall Ix- liable to pay any damages sustained in consequence of such filinjr. to Im; recovered by or on I)ehalf of the party injured tliereby, in any court having jurisdiction, and shall be punished by a fine not exeoedintr one Inindfi'd dollai'.s or by iiiiprisonnieiit not exeeediriLr three nidiifhs. Section G. Be it fxrthn- cnfiried. That ever\' such person, firm, corj)oration, association, or union adopting; or usinfr a trade- mark may i)roceed by suit to enjoin th(> iiiainifacture, use, dis- play, or sale of any counterfeits uv imitations thereof, and all courts of competent jurisdiction .shall prrant injunctions to re- strain such manufacture, use, display, or sale, and may award the complainant in a?iy such suit, the court ha\nng jurisdiction, such damafres resultinpr from such fraudulent manufacture, use, display, or sale as may be by the court or jury deemed just and reasonable: and shall require the defendants to pay to such person, firm, corporation, as.sociation. or union all profits de- rived from such wronfjful manufacture, use. display, or sale; and such court shall also order that all such counterfeits or imi- tations in the possession or under the control of any defendant in such case be delivered to an oflficer of the court, or to the complainant, to be destroyed. Section 7. Be it further enacted, That every person who shall use or display the genuine trademark for the purpose of fraud of anj- such person, firm, corporation, association, or union, in any manner not being authori/ced so to do by such person, firm, corporation, association, or union, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprison- ment for not less than three months, or by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. In all cases where such association or union is not incorporated, suits under this act may be com- menced and prosecuted by an oificer or member of such asso- ciation or union, in behalf of and for the use of such associa- tion or union. Section 8. Be it further enacted. That none of the provisions of this act shall affect or apply to persons, firms, or corjiora- tions who shall in good faith buy or come into possession of S04 M-I'IINPIX I". u'cmhIs with a f()iintorf<^it tradoinark tlioronn, wlion sndi person. firm, or corporation iliil not know at tin* time he or tliey obtained possession of sueh jrootls that the same were stamped with a ••ounterfeit tra advertise tlieir \lirrr state the particular (lass of goods to he advertised]. That they alone are entitled to the exclusive use and benefit of said mark or device, and so far as tliey are aware it is no infriiifj.-'ment upon the trademark of any other firm or corporation and no others are entitled to the uw of the same. Tlicy herewith tendei fac-similes of said mark with this petiti«»n whieli an' in all thin;;s identical with that hereto attached. They respectfully ask that this petition be filed and that their said trademark l»e rej;istere«l in accordance with the Act of the (Jeneral Assemiily of the State of Tennessee, beinj^ Chapter "21 of the Acts of I'Mtrt; and that they In- ;,'iven a certificate showing their compliance with said act, whereby they may have tlif bmclit and pnitictioii of tin- laws of the Stat«; of Tennessee. SubscrilK-d in my presence an saino. shall, upon convic- tion, hv \nu\is\u'i\ l»y tint' of not less tlum twenty-live nor more than one himdred dollars. Section 3. Every person, nwociation or union of working- men, ineorpornted or unincorporated, havinjr adopted a label, trademark, (ie.si^!i. device, imprint or form of advertisement, a8 aforesaid, may proceed liy suit to enjoin tlic uroiitirni manufac- ture, use. display or sale of any such lal)el. trademark, design, (leviee, imj)rint or form of atlvertisement and the maiuifacture, use. display or .sale of any such counterfeit or imitation, and all courts havinpr jurisdiction thereof shall prant injunctions to restrain such maiuifacture, use. display or sale, and .shall award the plaintifT in such sruit such damans resulting from such wronpful mainifaeture, use, display or sale as by him may have been sustained. Where such a.s.sociation or union is not incorporated suits under this act may be commenced and prose- cuted by any officer or member of such association or union ir his own name. t"or himself and for the use and benefit of sucl association or union. Section 4. Every person. as.sociation or union of working- men. incori)orate(l or unincorporated, that has heretofore or shall hereafter adopt a label, trademark, design, device, imprint or form of advertisement, shall file the same in the office of the Seeretary of State by leaving two copies, countorparts or fac- siwilrs thereof. Avith the Secretary of State, and said .secretary shall deliver back to such person, association or union so filing the same one of said eopies. counterparts or facsimiles, along vnth and attached to a duly attested certificate of the filing of same, for which he shall receive a fee of one dollar from such person, association or union. Such certificate of filing shall in all suits and prosecutions under this act be sufficient proof of the adoption of such label, trademark, design. deAnce, imprint or form of advertisement, and of the right of such person, {ussociation or union to adopt the same. No label, trade- mark, de .ign, device, imprint or form of advertisements .shall T)e fijefl i\^ aforesaid that would probably be mistaken for a lahel, trademark, design, device, imprint or form of advertise- ment already of record: provided, that no person or Association shall be permitted to register as a label, trademark, design, iTAir statutFhS, fi07 device, iinpiiiit or foiiii of advertisement, any emblem, design or rosciiihhiiicc tlici-do thai lias been adopted or used by any charitable, bfiicvoh'iit or rdifrious society or association with- out their consent: and provich'd, i'uilhcr. that all persons, institutions oi* associations now usin^' a bibel, trach'inark, (k'sign, (h'vice, imprint or roriii of advert iscnient sliall have thirty I\ V. Skction 2721. Hr.coKOKn with Si.ckktary ov j>tvti:. Any penion, assuointinn, or union may n-rord any trademark or name ^y filing with the Sooretary of State his or its chiim to the sanip, and a i'«)py or drscriptio!! of such trademark or name, with his affidavit attached tliereto. eertilied to l»y any <»ffieer authorized to take aeknowW'd^nients of eon\e\ aiiecs. setting,' forth that ho. or tlie finn. corporation. as.s(Miation, or union of whieh he is a niem})er, is the exclusive owner, or a}.'ent of the owner, of .sueh tradenuirk or nam*'. Skction 2722. Kkooki) •»n;N to itiu.ic Tin- Secretary of State nuist keep for public examination a record of all trade- marks or names f-led in his office, witli the date when filed and name of claimant; and must at tlic time of filinp colleet from each claimant the nuthori/ed fee. Section 272:?. OwNKKsiin'— transfer — damages for in- FRINOK.MKNT. Auv person who lia.s first adopted and used a trademark or name, whether within (»r lieyond the Umit.s of this state, is its original owner. Such ownerstiip may he trans- ferred in the same nuuiner as personal property, and is entitled to the siime protection by suits at law; and any court of competent jurisdiction may restrain, by injunction, and award dama^'es for, any use of trademarks or luimes in violation of this title. APPLICATION FOR TIIADKMAKK. Sut<- of , County of , bb: , hoinj: duly Bworn, doposfs and says that he is , located and doinj,' liUHin«'HB in County «f , State of . Tliat the said ia the exeluwive owner of the Irademark <>r name deserihed in the Hp-cifieation neeompanyinj; tliia aflidavit, and lie pctitionH tliat the Kaid trademark may Ik- reeorded in tlie ofliee of the S«'cn'tary of State of the Stat"' of I'tah. in aceordaiiee witli Title Hit. Compiled Laws of ruh. imt7. .Suhnerilxd and Hworn to Iwforr me this t<'cl for uh4« a trudcmark, of wliich tin- followiii;^ ih n (IcKcriptioii, or fncHitnilr: Said tradrnuirk to \tc iirt<'d },'riirrally an follown: Note. — Tin- ntututory irv iti $:{.()(( and tliri'o fac-similiH niiiHt accomjiany ap|dic-atioii. YKRMONT. AX ACT to uiiii'iul sfiliniis A'.Url, VM>:{. 4!tii:). 4;M;t; jiikI I'.iilT ..f til.' i)ul)lic statutiM, ri'latirif,' to tradtmarks. // Is Inrrhij cn.icicd hij the (Icncral Asscnthhj of the State of Vermont : SlX'TloN 1. Sri'tioii \\){')'.\ of tlif I'uhlic Stntutrs is In-n'hy amended so as to read as follows: Section 49G2. A person, partnership or corporation, or an association or union of workingnien, may adopt as and for a trademark or tradename any particular name, term, design, device, label, stamp or form of advertisement not previously owned or adopted hy another person, partnership or corporation, or as.sociation or union of workin^nen, to designate or dis- tinguish goods, wares or merchandise by him or them manu- factured or prepared, or on which the labor of persons Ix'longing to such association or union of working-men has been put, and may file the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State by leaving two copies, counterparts or fnc-similes thereof with said secretary, and shall also file therewith an accurate de- scription of such name, term, design, device, label, stamp or form of advertisement, verified under oath by the person or some officer of the partnership, corporation or association or union of workingnien by wliom it is filed. The fee for such filing shall be two dollars. The Secretary of State nuiy make such rules and regrnlations and prescribe such forms as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Shction 2. Section 4963 of the Public Statutes is hereby amended so as to read as follows : 810 APrENDIX F. Section 49G3. Tho Socrrtary of State shall dolivor to the person, partnership, corporation or jussociatioii <>r uiiimi of work- inirnirn so filinj: such traf tlie adop.ion of such trademark or tradename. No name. term, (h'si^rn. device, lalu-l, stanij) or form of advcr- tisoment shall he recorded that in any way reseMdjlcs or would he reasonahly mistaken for a name, t«'rni, desi^i, device, label, stamp or form of advertisement already on record. Skctuin :i. Section 4Wr} of the Pu])li<- Statutes is hereby- amended so as to read as follows: Section 4Wi'^. A person who knowinirly and wilfully sells or keeps for .sale floods upon which or in connection with which is affixed a fnrpery. imitation or counterfeit of a trademark or tradename adopted and recorded as provided in this chapter, and intended to represent such goods as the frcnuine ffoods of another person, or as poods upon which the labor of a member or members of such association or union of workinpnnen has been put .shall be punished as provided in the preceding section. Section 4. Section 40r)G of the Pul)lic Statutes is hereby amended so as to reati as follows : Section 4066. A person who. with intent to defraud another person, partnershij). corporation, or a.ssociation or union of workinpmen. knowingly affixes or causes to be affixed to or u[)on a [)ackafre or bottle containing goods, ware.s or merchan- dise, a name, term, design, device, laitel. stamp or form of advertisement, which designates .such goods, wares or merchan- dise either wholly or in part, by a word or words, or by general design, which is wholly f)r in part the same, either in appcar- nnco or in sound, as the word or words or the general design of a trademark or tradename adopted and recorded as provided in this chai)ter. or who knowingly sells or expo.ses for side .such f»ackage or bottle with such imitating or counterfeit namt*, term, desiftn. device, lahel. stamp or form of advertisement, may also he impri.soned not more than one year or fined not more than five hundred dollars, or both. VJ-.U.MUNI' SI. Ml IKS. fill Sfctiox 5. Sootion 40fi7 of tlif Piihlir StntntoR is horchy anu'iulcd so as to read as follows: Section 4i)f)7. The eourt of chancery may. dii coiiiphiiiit of the owner of a trademark or tradename a(lo|)ted and recf)rded as provided in tliis eliapter, enjoin other persons, partner.shif)s, corporations, or associations or unions of workin^men, from tlie mainifaeture, use or sale, without the authority of the owner, of all likenesses, similitudes, coi)ies, imitations or counterfeits thereof, and also from selling or exposint; for sale floods, com- pounds, or preparations, to or with wliich such unauthorized likenesses, similitudes, copies, imitations or cf»unterfeits are affixed or coTuiected, and may award to such complainant such a sum of money as shall be just and reasonable compensation for the damajre to the rejiutation of the complainant's genuine goods, comjiounds. pref)arati()ns, trademark or tradename, by reason of such wronp^ftil manufacture, use, sale or exposure for sale, and may also require the defendant to pay to the complainant in such cause a sum erpuil to the amount which the eom|)lainant would have received for the same (piantity of genuine iroods. c()mi)ounds or preparations, and may also order that all such likenesses, similitudes, copies, imitations or counter- feits in the possession or under the control of the defendant be delivered to an officer of the court or to the complainant, to be destroyed. Approved December 17, 1908. APPLTCATIOX FOR REGISTRATION. Certificate accompanyinfj a [insert name, term, design, device, label, stamp or form of advertisement, as the ease may he\ adopted as a I insert trademark, or tradename, as the ease may fee] and filed in accordance with Chapter 212 of tlie Pulilic Statutes and the amendments thereto, entitled "Trademarks; rrotection of Dealers in Milk and Bevera, traihiiattir ail„ptnl atui srml three extra ropirn, fac-»imilint or counlrrpnrtH of the trademark or name]. I^n^'th of tim.'. if any. durinn wliioli tlu- [hisrri name, term, iletttgti. ttrvici. laUel, stamit. ih the ritue maij be] luiH I..VH ill urn-. Siiuv [give month, tlai/ of mouth ami i/rar when adopted, or give date since irhen in uae\. 1. [if a person, innert name; if an offierr of a partnership or eorpora- tion, insert name, tttle of ofjiee, and name of the partnership or eorpura- tion. Outside of Vermont, oath should he administered hi) a Com- missioner for Vermont or Sotari/ I'uhlie, irith seal] (In li-n'l>y •l«'clarp, that [insert the name of the person, partnership, or eorporation adopting the trademark or tradename] has a ri^'lit to tin- uw of the |iH«.'r/ trademark, or tradename, as the rase mat/ be] referred to in tin- for.-p)in^' (•.■rtificatf, and tliat no otlu-r p.Tson. partm-rHhip or corporation lias tlu- ri;;lit to unci) usi-. ritlHT in tli.- i— . [iiiyn here]. Stat<- of -, 89: 10—. Tlicn personally appeared the above named , and made oath tliat th .ore^'oin-: declaration hy him suljticrihed is true. Before me. [Here write offieial title.] REGri.ATTOXP. A. If a eorporation. state jinder tlw laws of what state incorporated. If one or more persons are doin;,' hiisiness under a partnersliip name, htate the name of such person or persons and add the words "doing buai- nesH under tiie name and style of." then {.'ivc tlie partnersiiip name under which the liusiness is conducted. B. State, first, as near as possible in one or two words, the p-neral class of mirclian«lise to which the name. term, desi^'ii. device, label, stamp or form of adv.rtisement has been or is intended to be apjtropriated; second, as near as p(.ssible in one or tw.. words, the jmrticular descrip- tion or designation of such freneral class of m.rciiandise. Do not describe the composition, or name tin- parts which comprise the f(.rmulu of which tin- mercliatidis«- is compose:s. 9\i conHidorod to l)o tlio ORHi-ntial fcatiiri' or f.-atiin-K Hiin-of. If an illuH- tration or pictorial roprcBi-ntation iH uw-d for a trademark, it iH vi-ry d«- 8iral)U' that a word or words Hliall also form a part of the "c-Hwntial f"^- turi's" of Hucli trademark; fourth, Jiy UHin^ tlie following wordn, that: "Tli«' style and si/.f of typt- and tin- color of ink and papi-r may be varied at nifaHurc." JS'OTE. — The rc'MBtration fee in .$4.00. VIRGINIA. Act of Ajiril :!0, I'.tO.I. AN ACT to protect persons, firms, corporations, associations, or unions of workin;,'men in the use of their labels, trademarks, terms, de- signs, devices, and forms of advertisements, and to provide f.ir the registry thereof. Approved April 30, l!to:5. Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assemhhj of Virginia, That whenever any person, firm, corporation, or any association or union of Avorkingmen has hcrctoforo adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, any label, trademark, term, desigTi, device, or form of advertisement for the purpose of designating, making known, or distinguishing any goods, •wares, merchandise, or otlier product of labor, a.s having been made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed, or put on sale Iry such person, firm or corporation, or association, or union of wt)rkingmen, by a member or members of such associa- tion or union, and has. filed the same for registry as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful to counterfeif or imitate such label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertise- ment, or to use, sell, offer for sale or in any way utter or circulate any counterfeit or imitation of any such label, trade- mark, term, design, de\-ice or form of advertisement. Section 2. Whoever counterfeits or imitates any such regis- tered label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of adver- tisement, or knowingly and with intent to deceive, sells, offers for sale, or in any way utters or circulates any counterfeit or imitation of any such registered label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of advertisement, or knowingly and with intent to deceive, keeps, or has in his possession, with the intent that the same shall be sold or disposed of, any goods, wares, merehandise, or other product of labor to which, or on which, S14 Ai'pi \i>i\ r. nny surh coiintortrii or imitation is printt^tl. pniiitt^d. stamped nr impress*«d; or knowiii^'ly and with intent to dci-oive, knowin(;ly sells or disposes of any jjoods. wares, niereliandise or otlier produet of labor contained in any box. ease, ean, or |ia»-ka>;«' to whieh, or on wiiich, any sucii eoiinterfi'it or imita- tion is attflclied, affixed, printed. paiiif<'' in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth by leaving six copies, counterparts, or fac-simihs thereof, with the said secretary, and by filing' here- with a sworn application, specifyinj; (1) the name or names of the person, firm, corporation, a-ssociaiion or union, on whose behalf such label, trademark, term, desipii. dence, or form of advertisement shall be filed; (2), the class of merchandise and the descrii)tion of the poods to which it has been, or is- intended to be appropriated, statinp that the party so filinfr, or on whose behalf such label, tradenuirk. term, desipn. device, or form of advertisement shall be filed, has a riplit to tise the sr.me; {^), that no other person, firm. a.s.sociation. union, oi corporation- ha>i the ripht to such use, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as nmy be calculated to deceive. anai'ts filed there- with are tnie and correct. There sliall be paid for such filing VIRGINIA STATUTES. 81'> and rpgistry to tlio Secretary nf Die Commonwoallh a fee of two dollars juid (iffy cents. Said secretary sliall deliver to such person, firm, corporation. associatiotJ, or union so lilinK, or causing' to l)e tiled, any such lahel, trademark, term, desifjn, device, or form of advertisement, so many duly attested certifi- cates of the registry of the same as such jjej-son, firm, corpora- tion, jussociation, or union may apply for. for each of whicji certificates said secretary sludl receive a fee of two dollars and fifty ceTits. Any such certificate of registry shall in all suits and prosecutions under this act be sufficient proof of the adoption and repi.stry of such label, trademark, term, design, device, or form of advertisement. Said Secretary of the Com- monwealth shall not record for any person, firm, corporation, union, or association any label, trademark, dcsijzn. term, device, or form of advertisement that would probal)ly be mistaken for any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertise- ment that would probably be mistaken for any label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement heretofore filed by or on behalf of any other person, firm, corporation, union or association. Section 4. Any person who shall for himself, or on behalf of any other person, firm, corporation, association, or union, procure the filing and registry of any label, trademark, term, design, or form of advertisement in the office of the Secretary- of the Commonwealth, under the provisions of this act, by making any false or fraudulent representations or declaration verbally or in writing, or by any fraudulent mean.s. shall be liable to pay any damages sustained in consequence of any such filing, to be recovered by or on behalf of the party injured thereby, in any court having jurisdiction, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three months. Section 5. Every such penson. firm, corporation, association, or union, which has adopted and registered a label, trademark, term', design, device, or form of advertisement as aforesaid, may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacture, use, display, or sale of any counterfeits or imitations thereof, and all courts of competent jurisdiction shall grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use, display, or sale, as may be by the said sir. Al'PENDIX K, riturt iltvinotl just nnd roasoimbU*. and shall ivlicant tlie excluHive nw of the same for the pur|>oMc of di-Hij^natin^', makin;; known and diHtin;n>i>*l*in;,' tlie artieles Iiereinaft4'r deHoril»e-t forth : \vasmin(;T()N stati ri-:ii. S17 TIio nppljpnnt linH InTrtoforo adopted nnd UKod, nnd hnw tlio ri(,'lit to UHc, wiid IhIm'I, tradciiiurk, dcsifrn, device or form (>( ndvertiHinj/. for the purpoHe of d«-Higiintinj;, makinj,' known or diHtin^nuHliiiif,' tlie artideK hereinafter deBipnated, and that no other person, firm, UHHotiation, union or corporation, has the ripht to wuh uw, either in the identical form, or in any such near resemhhinee thereto uh may he calculated in deceive. Tlie class of artieleH, and tlie deHcrii)tion tliereof, to which mich lalx-I, trademark, term, dcHipn, device or form of advertinin;.' is appropriated, are tlie following, to-wit: [insert fnrsimUc or cunntirixirt of trademark or label \. The facsimile or counterpart herewitli likd is true and correct. Witness the following signature this, the day of , 19 — . State of I, a Notary ru1)lic for the of , in tlie State afore- said, do hcrchy certify tluit \if officer of corporation or partnrr 80 State] this day personally appeared hefore me in my and state aforesaid and made oatli tiuit the statements contained in the fore- going writing bearing date on the day of , 1!) — , are true and that he is duly authorized to make this oath. Given under my hand and oflicial seal, this, the day of , 10—. j^^OTE. — Five additional fae-sitniles of counterparts of the trademark or label should accompany tlie application. WASHINGTON. §§9402-0500, Remington & Ballinger's Code of the Laws of Washington. (Section 9492) 1. Counterfeiting trademarks prohibited. -Wlienever any person, or any association or union of working- men has heretofore adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, and has filed as hereinafter provided any lal)el. trade- mark, term, design, device or form of advertisement for the purpose of designating, making kno\m, or distinguishing any goods, wares, merchandise or other product of labor, as liaving been made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed or put on sale by such person or association or union of workinginen or by a member or members of such association or union, it shall be unlawful to counterfeit or imitate such label, trade- 818 ArrENDix f. mark, tonn, ilo.'^ipn. dovico or form of adviTtisonu'iit, or to iisi*. soil. otTiM- for iisiU\ or in any way utter or cirt'ulatt' any fountorfoit or imitation of any such laht'l. tni(lrm;irl;, term, tU»sign. iK'vii't'. or form of advert isi'iucnt. (^^K^TIO^• 049.1') 12. Pknai-ty. Wlioev(>r eounterfeit.s or iini tntt*s any .suoh lalnM, trademark, term, desiirn. devie(> or form of advert isomcnt. or soils, offers for .sale, or in any way utters or eireulates any counterfeit or imit-jition of any sueli label, trado- mark. term, dosipni. devioe or form of advertisement; or keeps or has in his pos.sossion. with intent that the same sliall be sold or disposed of, any ?oods, wares, inerehandis(> or otlK^r product of labor to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is printed, painted, stamped or impres.sed : or knowincly sells or disposes of anv roods, wares. Triercliaudise or other product of labor contained in anv box. case, can or packa^re. to which or on which any sueh counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, painted, stamped or impressed; or keeps or has in his possession, with intent that the same shall be sold or disposed of. any poods, wares, mercliandisc or other pro' such person, association or union, that has hercloforc adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use. a label, trademark term, design, device or ff»rm of adviTtisrment. as provided in section one of this act. may file the same for record in the office of the Se.->retary of State by leaviuir two copies, counterparts or far- .^iitnlff! thereof, with said secretary, and by filingr therewitli a sworn application specifvintr the name or names of the person. nssneiation or union on whase behalf such label, trademark, term, desipn. dexice or form of advertisement shall be filed, the class of merchandise, and a de.scription of the poods to whieh it has been, or is intended to l>e appropriated, statinp that the party so filinp. or on whase behalf such label, trade- mark, term, desipn. device or form of advertiseni'^nt shall be filed, hay the right to the use of the same, that no other person, WASHINGTOX STATITKS. SH) firm, association, union or corporation lias tlio riu'lit to such use eitlier in the identical form or in any such near rc.semljlance thereto as may Ik' calculatcil to tlcccivc. and that the fa< simile or counterparts tiled therewith are true and correct. There shall he paid, for such filiuf^ and recordiiifr, a fee of five dollars. Said secretary shall deliver to such person, association or union so filing' or causinj; to he filed any such lahel, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement, so many duly attested certificates of the recording of the same as such person, a.ssocia- tion or union may apply for, for each of which certificates said secretary shall receive a fee of two dollars. Any such certifi- cate of record shall, in all suits and prosecutions under this act, he sufficient proof of the adoption of such lahel, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement. Said Secretary of State shall not record for* any person, union or as-sociation, any lahel, trademark, term, design, device or form of adver- tisement that would prohahly he mistaken for any lahel, trade- mark, term, design, device or form of advertisement theretofore filed hy or on hehalf of any other person, union or association. (Section 949r)) 4. FRAini-LrxT i-^ii-ing, etc. — Pen.\lty. Any person who shall, for himself or on hehalf of any other person, association or union, procure the filing of any label, trademark, term, design or form of advertisement in the office of the Secretary of State, under the provisions of this act, by making any false or fraudulent representations or declara- tion, verbally or in writing, or by any fraudulent means, shall he liable to pay any damages sustained in consequence of any such filing, to he recovered by or on behalf of the party injured thereby, in any court having jurisdiction, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or by imprison- ment not exceeding three months. (Section 0400) f). En.ioin upe, etc. Every such person, a&sociation or union adopting or using a label, trademark, terra, design, device or fonn of advertisement as aforesaid, may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacture, use, display or sale of any counterfeits or imitations thereof, and all courts of competent jurisdiction shall grant injunctions to re.strain such manufacture, use, display or sale, and may award the eomplaiuant in any such suit damages resulting from such S-20 Ari'KNDlX F. manufnctnrc, use. sale or ilisplay. as may be by the said court • liH'im'cl just aiul reasonable, and shall reiiuire the delVudaiits to pay to such person, association (»r union all profits (lcriverfcits or imita- tions in tho possession or under thr control of any dt-fendant in .sueh cause be delivered to an officer of the court, or to the complainant to be destroyed. ^SkcTION 9M^~) <». rKNM.TY KOK rXArTIIOHIZKO I'SK. Kvcrj' person who shall use or display the penuine laiiel. trademark, term, desi^m. device or form of advertisement of any such person, a.ssociation or union in any manner, not beinp author- ized so to do by such person, union or a.ssociation. shall be deemed puilty of a misdemeanor,, and shall be punishcMl by imprisonment for not more than three months, or liy a fine of not more than one hundred ($100) dollars. Tii all cases where such association or union is not incorporated, suits under this act may be commenced and prosecuted liy an officer or member of such association or nnion on behalf of and for the use of such association or union. ( Section' 0498^ 7. Penalty for i:se of name or seal. Any person or persons who shall, in any way, nse the name or seal of any such person, association or union or officer thereof, in and al>out the sale of poods or other wise, not IxMup author- ized to so use the same, .shall be puilty of a niisdoiiieanor. and .shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than three Dwnths, or by a fine of not more than one l\undred dollars. (Section 0400) S. Pfjs'.vltv for DFFAriNd or removing TRADEMARK, ETC. Any pcrson usinp the trademark so adopted and filed by any such person, or any imitation of such trade- mark, or any counterfeit thereof; or who shall, in any manner mutilate, deface, destroy or remove such trademark from any PocmIs. NN'jires, merchandise, article or articles, or from aiiy pack- ape or packapes containinp the same, or from any empty or second hand packape which has contained the same or been used therefor, wth the intention of \isinp sueh empty or second hand package, or of the same being used to cont^iin poods, wares, \vv.siiin(;t<)N sT\TrTi>;. 821 morf'liandiso, article or artiflos of tlic samn Ronoral fharacter iis I hose for whicli tlicv were first used; and any person wlio shall use any eiuiity or second liaml packfiKC for tlit- |tur|)080 aforesaid, witliowt the consent in writing' of the i)erson whoso trach-mark was first applied thereto or phiced thereon shall, npoii conviction thereof, he liinMl in any sum not h-ss than oiu; hnndrcd dollais, or hy inii)risonnient for not more than three niontlis. and the p;oods. wares, niereliandise, article or articles, contained in any second hand paekape or packages shall ho. forfeited to the original user of such paekajjo or packacres whoso trademark was first applied thereto or placed thereon. The violation of any of the almve j)rovisions as to each particular article or package shall he held to he a separate offense. (Section 9500) 0. "Pkrson" defined. The word "person" in this act shall he construed to include a person, co-partner- ship, corporation, association or union of workingnien. "Where the mark in litigation has not heen registered under section '.W'2^. Hallinirer's Annotated Todes. the sufficiency of a - ciation, union or corporation has the right to such use, either in the <^22 AIM'KNPIX K. iilcDticH] form t«r in niiy siuh iwiir rrwrnliluiHi- tluTrtu as may In- tul- rulntod to d«vfiv«>. SubscrilK'.l antl sw.irn t<> Ixfori- ni.- this «!ny of , A. I> 19—. llnipri-HH Siul Inn-. 1 • Xotart/ Pulilir in ami for thr Stntr of , rcsiitiiiij at . INMianioN In AITT.KWNT. ( FiH- for filing', $.">.00 for t-aoli a|)])lii-(ition.) Insert in tin" fifht Klank tlif nnmi> of the jxTrton. firm or oorporatioii on wluti**' lu-linlf till' lal>«-l is to ht- Hied, fillinj; in name of city, rU'., an indicated. Dt-wriln' tin- trudrmark fully. ;:ivin;.' form, manm-r and urranj^r- mi-nt, «'to., and transmit two facsimiles of said trademark icith thr application. Dt-wrilu' tlu' class of j{oods, mcrchundise or commodity upon wiiich sumo is to Ik- used, indicatinjf the manner in which it shall Im' shown, whether stamped, painted. lithoj.'rnphed, pasted or otherwis*', and whetln-r same may he varied in si/.e, color, etc., without clianj,'in<,' the }:eneral form and wording thereof, etc. No application will he filed for a trademark covering; a specific article or class of merchandise, etc., on which the same or a very similar one is of record.* The same term may U- us«'d and applied to one class of merchandise that has heen adopti-d for an entirely dilTerent class, hut no two covering the same class can U- filed, under tin- trademark law of 1807, which can be found upon paj,'e Ci.'), of the print«'d session laws of that year. WEST VIRGINIA. Alts of 1001. SeCiiON 17. WhoncvtT any pci'son, firm or corporation, or any association or nnion of workingrmen, has heretofore adopted or used, or shall herealt^'r adopt or use, any label, trademark, term, dcsifni, device or form of advertisement for the u.se of desi^rnatin^^ making' known, or di.stiiifruishint,' any coods, wares, merchandise or other product of labor, as havinpr been made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed or put on sale, by such person, firm, coriioration or association or union of work- inffmen, or by a member (tr memliers of such a.s.sociation or union, i w\ sliall rcL'ister the same as provided in siM-tion tlnv' of this act, it .shall be uniawful to knowinply counterfeit or imitate such label, trademark, term, desipi, device or form of advcrtiiscmcut. or to knowingly use, bcll, ofTcr for siiie, or in WKsr \iKCiNi\ sivri lis. 82:J any way utter or firciilali; any oouiilfrfcit or imitation of any such label, trademark, term, (lesit,'u, deviee or form of adver- tisement. Section 18. Whoovcr so knowiuRly counterfeits or imitator any sueh repistorod label, trademark, term, desifjn, device or form of advertisement ; or knowingly sells, or ofTers for sale, or in any way utters or circulates any counterfeit or imitation of any such rop:istered lahel, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement; or knowingly keeps or has in his posses- sion, with intent that the same shall be sold or dispased of, any goods wares, merchandise or other product of lalior to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is printed, painted, stamped or imi)res.sed : or knowingly sells or disposes of any goods, wares, merchandise or other product of labor contained in any Iwx. case, can or package to wliich or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, painted stamped or impressed or knowingly keeps or has in his possession, with intent that the same siiall he sold or dis- posed of, any goods, wares, merchandise or other product of labor in any box, case, can or package, to which or on which any such counterfeit or imitation is attached, affixed, printed, stamped or impressed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or hy imprisonment for not more than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Section 10. Every' such person, firm, corporation, associa- tion or union that has heretofore adopted or used, or shall hereafter adopt or use, a label, trademark, term, design, device or form of advertisement as provided in section one of this act, shall register the same by filing the same for record m the office of the Secretary of State by leaving two copies. c/)unterparts or fac-similes thereof, with said secretary and by filing there- with a sworn ap'plication specifying the name or names of the person, association or union on whose behalf such label, trade- mark, term, design, device or form of advertisement, .shall be filed ; the class of merchandise and a description of the goods to which it has been or is intended to be appropnated. stating that the party so filing, or on whose behalf such label, trade- mark, term, design, device or form of advertisement shall be filed, has the right to use the same ; that no other person, firm, S24 APPEN'mx F. association niiioii or rorporation lia>< tli(^ rifrlit to sucli ns^o, eithor in the idtMitioal form or iti any siuli iioar rosoinhlanee tltiTt'to as may Im' calciilatcd to (Icccivf, and that tlif fat'-siiiiilcs or ooiintor|>arts filiMl tlu'nnvitli ar<> \r\io and correct. There sliall he paid for siich filing? and recording; a fee of one (hiHar. Said secri'tary shall (h'liv«'r to such pciNon. association, or union, so tilinjr or causintr to he filcHl any such hihcl. tradomark, term, dcipn. device or form of advertisement so nuiny duly attested certificates of tlie reeortlinp of the same as such person, firm, corporation, association or union may apidy for, for each of which certificates said secretary shall receive a fee of one t'; \riT;M>i\ K MOW existinp: for tlu' protection oi' any lalu'l, trademark, torra, tU'siiJH, ilfvii'i' or form of atlvt-rtiscmcut, wlu'tht'r or not the same is ropisteretl iiiulfr the provisions lu'reof. The Aet of 1SS2 relates to timl>er trad.-. Another Aet of 18SI) rehites to the pnttcrtioii ol" i)ersoMs and eorporations enpi^'ed in mainifaeturinj; and sellinpr mineral waters, malt licpiors and other hcverapcs. XoTK. — No ortifial form of application for regi.stratiun. Fee for certilieate. $').()(). WISCONSIN. LABKI-S AM) TK\ni;.MAHKS HKGISTRATION. Cli. 1-27. l'.M)!»; ill clT.Tt May i:i. l!l()!i. Section' 1717a. Trademarks and labels; api'lication. 1. Any person, tinn. copartnership, corporation, association, or union of \Vi)rkinecification, designation, or form of adver- tisement is to be filed, the class of merchandise and a separate description of the goods to which the same has been or is intended WISCONSIN STATIITKS. 827 to 1)0 appropriiiltMl, tlic residence, location, or [)lace of businesH of sucli pai'ly, that the party on whose behalf such label, trade- iiiai'k, ti'adcnanic. term, de.sigii, pattern model, device, shop- inark. drawing', sjjecification, designation or form of advntise- ment is to l)e filed, has the ri<;bt to the use of the same, and that no other person, or persons, firm, copartnership, corporation, association or union of vvorkingmen • * * has such right, either in the i(hMitieal form or in any such near resend)lance thereto as may be calculated to deceive, and that the originals, copies, photographs, or t-uts, counterparts, * * * facsimiles, or drawings filed tluM-ewith are correct. Tradename; several i'arts. 2. Where the several parts of a single unit article of trade or commerce are severally marked to distinguish them by the person, firm, copartnership, corpo- ration, association, or union of workingmen having the right to manufacture such single unit under a tradename or brand used by him or them, such person, firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or union may, in filing under this section the desig- nation of such tradename or brand, attach thereto photographs or cuts with the specifications of the several parts of the unit to which it is attached or applied, and thereafter no further filing or registration of any such parts so used shall be neces- sary to protect the owner or lawful use of the tradename or brand of the unit against the use by others of any of the several parts thereof, and any such filing shall be construed to be a single filing, and but one filing fee shall be paid therefor. Recording. 3. The papers required to be filed hereunder shall be recorded in a book for that purpose, and there shall be paid to the Secretary of State for such recording and filing one dollar. Ch. 127, 1000: in ofToct May 13, 1000. Section 1747am. Duplication or reproduction prohibited. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, copartnei- ship, corporation, association, or union of workingmen, with- out the consent of the o\mer of any such label, trademark, tradename, term, design, pattern, model, device, shopmark, drawing, specification, designation, or form of advertisement 328 \iTi.M>i\ V. ropistorod in acvonlaiu-i- uitli tlu> provisions of the preceding MH-tioii. to r.'movr any swell lalu-l. trademark, tradcnami'. design, shopinark. or otlicr designation. t)r forni of advertisement so r»'gistere provisions relative to emergeiK-y repairs, shall be guilty of a ndsdemeanor. and upon conviction then'of shall be punished by impri.sonment for not more than six months or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars. WYOMINf; STATITKS. 829 Not nETROArnvE. 12. Xotliin^; contaiiifd in swtimi.s 1747a, 1747ain and 1747an shall rcHjuire a new filing or registration in cases to which this act api)lie.s where there has heretofore been a coniplianct' with section 1747a, or any acts anuMidatorv thereof, l)y any person or persons, fimu, co{)artnership, corporation, as- sociation, or union ol workingnieu. state of , County of , as: ■ , licin}^ first duly Hworu, doposcH nnd says that he is tho of the , located and doinj,' husinesH in the City of State of , and that he makes this sworn statement in and behalf, and that the is the solo owner of the trademark sought to l)e re<,'istered, and has adopted the same for its own use. The trademark sought to be registered is as follows: The class of merchandise to which the same is intended to l)e appro- priated is , and a particular description of the goods i.s . That the said has the right to the use of the same, and that no other person or persons, firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or union of workingmen lias such right either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive, and that the originals, copies, photographs or cut, counterparts, fac- similes or diawings filed herewith are correct. 19- Subscril)ed and sworn to before me this » — . [Seal.] Note. — Fee for certificate $1.00. By - day of -, A. D. Notary Public. WYO^riNG. REGISTRATION OP TRADEMARKS. Section 3430. Wyoming Compiled Statutes. 1010. Any person, association or union may adopt a label, trade- mark, stamp or form of advertisement not previously owned or adopted by any other person, association or union, and may file the same for record in the office of the Secretary of State, by leaving: two copies, counterparts or fac-siniiles thereof, with said secretary; and .shall file therewith a certificate specif>nnfr the name or names of the person, association or union so filing such 830 apih^:kdix p. label, traileniark, stamp or form of atlvortiscMuent, his or its rf.sidenrc. location or plaoo of husim'ss, the cIjuss of morchaiulise ami till' particular dosrription of ^ooils comprised in siK'h class to which it has hccn or is iiitvndi'd to ho a])propriatctl, aiul the length of time, if any. durinj? which it has hecn in use. Such certificate shall he acctmipanied hy a writtiMi decJaration, verified under oath hy the person or 5*mie officer of the association or union hy whom it is filed, to the efTect that the party so filing such lahel, trjhdemark stamp or form of advertisement, has a ripht to the use of the sa/ine. and tlmt no- other person, firm, a.ssociation. union or corporation has the riiiht to such use, either in the i(l(>ntic;d form or in any such near resemblance thereto as may he cah'uhitt'd to deceive and that the fa(vsimiles, copies or counterparts filed Hierewith are true and correct. There shall he paid for such filinir the fee of five dollars. Said secretary shall deliver to such person, association or union so filinp the same, a duly attested certificate of the record of the same, for which he shall receive the fee of five dollars. Such certificate of record shall, in all suits and prosecutions under this chapter, be sufficient proof of the adoption of such label, stamp, trade- mark or form of advertisement. No label, trademark, .stamp or form of advertisement shall be recorded that would rea.sonably be mistaken for a label, trademark, stamp or form of advertise- ment already on record. (L. 1899, ch. 5, sec. 1; R. S. 1899, sec. 2526.) XoTF. — Forms for application for regristration are not fur- nished. The fees, as above stated, are : For registration, $5 00 ; for certificate of registration. $5.00. Three fac-similes or copies of the label, trademark, .stamp or form of advertisement should accompany the application for registration; one to be attached to the declaration, one for use on the certificate of registration, and one for tlie record. APPENDIX G. CANADA. CIRCULAR of the Department of A;4riculture containing "T]\c Trade Mark and Design Act" and "The Timber Marking Act" with Rulea and Fornin luider tlie Harae, approved by the Cioveruor Gen- eral in Cuuneil. IDlf). CHARTER 71. AN ACT roBpecting Trade Marks and Industrial Designs. SHORT TITLE, 1. Thi.9 act may ha cited as the Trade Mark and Design Act. (R. S., c. 63, s. 1.) GENERAL INTERPRETATION. "[Minister." 2. Ill this act, uiik's,s the context other\vi.se requires, "Min- ister" means the Minister of Agriculture. DIVISION OF ACT. 3. This act is divided into three parts. Part I applies only to trade marks. Part II applies only to industrial designs, but does not apply to any design the proprietor of which is not a person resident within Canada, nor to any design which is not applied to a subject-matter manufactured in Canada. Part III is general and applies to botli trade marks and industrial de- signs. (R. S., c. 63, ss. 2, 24 and 36.) PART I.— TRADE ^lARKS. INTERPRETATION. Definitions. '4. In this part, unless the context other-\vise requires — ^(o) "general trade mark" means a trade mark ased in con- nection with the sale of various articles in which a pro- prietor deals in liis trade, business, occupation or call- ing generally ; (&) "specific trade mark" means a trade mark used in con- nection -with the sale of a class merchandise of a par- ticular description. (R. S., c. 63, s. 4.) 831 g32 AIM'KNDIX G. W tint f-li«n 1m- .1.-. iiiiii to l.<- tniilr iiiaikH. .'». All marks, iiainos. Inlx-ls. brands, packatrcs or other husi- tn'ss tl»»vii'i>s whirli an' adopted for use by any person in liis tradf. biisinos.s. m'cupation or (•allin^^ for tlie piirpo.se of distin- piishinp any manufaetnre. prodiiet or article of any deseription niantifaetured. pnxlneed. eonipotind»*d. packed or olTered for salt^ by hint. applieackafre. parcel, case, box or other v«'ssel or receptacle of any description whatsoever eontaininjr the same, shall, for the purposes of this act, bo <-onsidered and known as tra\ Minister. 9. Subject to the |)rovisions of this act. the minister shall on application duly made in that behalf, n^fjister therein the trade mark of any pro|)rietor ajjplyinj: for stich re«;istration in man- ner as provided by this a<-t in that behalf and by the rules and refrulations mad.- thereunder. (l{. S.. <•. 63. ss. 5 and 8.) CANADIAN TKADK.M \|{K AND DESIGN ACT. 833 Nature of Iriidt; mark Ui he hjx cif'ud. 10. Every i)n)pri('tor of a trade mark who applies for its ref?- istratioii sliall slate in his application whetlirr tin- sro- visioiis of this act ; and the day, month and year of the entry of the trade mark in the repister sliall also be set forth in such certificate. (R. S., c. 6.^ s. 13.) ASSIGNMENT. 'I'radc iiiarkH may In- assi^MU'd. 15. Every trade mark retristercd in the office of the minister shall he a.ssipnahle in law. Kntry. 2. On the a.s.sipnm<'nt heinp produced, and the fee hy this act prescrihed therefor heinp paid, the minister shall cause the name of the assirrnee. with the date of the assign- ment and such other detaik as he sees fit. to he entered in the margin of the register of trade marks on the folio where such trade mark is registered. (R. IS., c. iiii. s. 10.) TIMK I.I .MIT. Duration of ^ciwral tradr mark. 16. A general tnide mark once registen-d and destined to be the sign in trade of the |)roprietor thereof, shall endure with- out limitation. (H. S., c. f).'{, s. 14. ^ .•\inl of H|ti-cilii- triuir mark. 17. A s[»ccific tradi- mark, when registered, shall endure for the term of twenty-five years, hut may be renewed before the CANADIAN TIIADKMAKK AND DKSICN A(T. 8:J5 oxpirntion of tho said tonn hy IIk- projjrictor tlicrcof, or hy his \e^nl ri'pri'soutativt', for anotlicr term of twenty-five years, and so on from time to time; hut every such renewal shall he rejriK- tercd hefore the expiration of the current term of twenty-five years. (K. S., e. G3, s. 14.) CANCELLATION. ("iUK'tllation of trade mark. 18. Any person who has registered a trado mark may peti- tion for the oancfllation of the same, and the minister may, on re(^eivin^ such petition, cause the said trade mark to l)e so can- celled. KfTcct of cancellation. 2. Sueii trade mark shall, after such cancellation, he considered as if it had never heen registered under the name of the said person. (K. S., c. 68, s. 15.) RIGHT OF ACTION Suit l)y proprietor. 19. An action or suit may he maintained hy any proprietor of a trade mark against any i)erosn who uses the registered trade mark of such proprietor, or any fraudulent imitation thereof, or who sells any article hearing .such trade mark or Any sucJi imitation thereof, or contained in any package of such proprietor or purporting to be his, contrary to the provisions of this act. (R. S., c. 63, s. 18.) Xo suit unless trade mark is registered. 20. No person shall institute any proceeding to prevent the infringement of any trade mark, unless such trade mark is regis- tered in pursuance of this act. (R. S., c. 63, s. 10.) OFFENSES AND PENALTIES. Unlawful use of trade mark. 21. Every p(M-son other than the proprietor of any trade mark who, with intent to deceive and to induce any person to believe that any article of any description whatsoever was manu- s:{r> AiM'KNnix a. Pai'turecl, pnnlin'o*!. i-onipoiuult'd. pjukod or sold hy the pro- pru'tor of siirh tnidc iiwirk.— • (a) marks any such tirtioK' with any tradf mark rt'^istrrcil under tho provisions of this act, or with any part of such tradr mark, whether hy apply iiij^' sm-h t rade mark or any part thereof to the article itself or to any package or tliinp containinp such article, or hy iisin<.r any jiackape or thinpso marked wliich lias heen used l>y the i)roprie- tor of such trade mark; or. (b) knowinply sells or offers for sale any such article marked with. such trade mark or with any part thereof; I'nuilt y. is piiilty of an indictable offense and liable for each offense to a fine nf>t exceeding one hundred dollars and not less than twenty dollars. To wlmm ])ayalilc. 2. Such fine shall he paid to the proprietor of .such trade mark, together with liie costs incurred in cnftfrcinp and recovering the same. Suit liy proprietor or his ajrcnt. 3. Every complaint under this sark is a irenuine trade mark and not forced or falsely applied, or that the trade de- scription is not a false trade description within the mcauing of Part VII of the Criminal Code. (51 V., c. 41, s. 18.) TANADIAN 'IK ADI M AKK \M) DKsKiN AC'l". 837 I'AIM 11. INDl sriM.Al. DKSIGNS. l{i:(;lSTI{.\Tli)N. Tll"j;iHt AITKNPIX C. PnrtiruIiirH tluTctif. 2. SiicJj fortificat.' sluill show the (Lite of roRistration in- oludiiif: tlif tiay. moiitli aiul yt-ar of tlu' ontry tluTcof in the proper resistor. tlu> naiiu- and atMross of the rcjristonMl pro- prietor, th.' mim'u'r of sm-h (h'sinii and the iimidu'r or letter empl«»y»'il to denote or eorre.sl>oiid to the n-pistratioii. ('(•rtinontc t«> 1h; tvidniri' of imitiiitH. :{. The said certifieato. in the ahsence of proof to the con- trary, shall he suflu'ient evidence of the dcsi^Mi. of the origi- nality of the design, of the name of the proprietor, of the person named as proprietor heincr proprietor, of the eom- mencenient and term of repistry. and of eomplianee with the provisions of this act. (R. S., e. (hi, ss. 22 an.l 28.) Wlio may rr;:istfr. 28. Tf the author of any design shall, for i good and valuable eonsidenition. have executed the same for some other person, such other person shall alone be entitled to register it. (R. S., c. 63, s. 25.) EXCLUSIVE RIGHT, ■Rcpiatrntinn ;;ivps. 29. 'An excliLsive right for an industrial design may he ac- quired hy registration of the same under this part. (R. S., c. 63, s. 29.) rhiration of rijrht — Ronownl — Proviso. 30. Such exclusive right shall he valid for the term of five years, hut may he renewed, at or hofore the expiration of the said term of five years, for a further period of five yea in or less on payment of the fee in this act prescrihed for extension of time: l'rovif the rct'istcrcd projirictor. or. if assigneI>;iriN ACT. 841 By Holliny iirticlc with (IcHi;;ii irn|.r|ilii'ation. .'{. A nioit'ty of such pt'iialty shall lu-lon^ t^ the jirose cutor. and the other moiety to His Majesty for the public uses of Canada (K. S.. c. G'^, s. :V2.) LIMITATION OK ACTIONS. 'riiiif. 38. All .suits under this part and all proccedinps thereunder for ofTen.ses, shall he brought within twelve months from the eause of aetion or connnission of the ofTense and not afterwards. (R. S., c. 63, s. 36.) PART HI.— GKN'KKAL. RULE.S, REGULATIONS AND FX3RMS. Minister may make rulrs and adojit forms. .3f>. Th(^ minister may, from time to time, subject to the approval of the (iovernor in ("ouncil, make rules and regulations and adojit forms for the purpo.ses of this aet respectinjjf trade- marks and industrial desipns; and such rules, refrulations and forms circulated in print for the use of the public shall be deemed to be correct for the purposes of this act, Doc'uiniiits (liMincd \ali(l. 2. All documents executed according: to tbe sjiid rule.s, regulations and forniK, and accepted by the minister, .shall be deemed to be valid so far as i*elates to official proceedings undr-r this act. (K. S., c. (i3, ss. and 23.) CLERICAL ERRORS. < 'iirri'ctidM. 40. Clerical errors which occur in the drau-inp np or copy- ing of any in.strument under this act re.sj)ecting trademarks or industrial designs shall not be construed as invalidating the Hame, but, when discovered, may be corrected under the author- it v of the minister. (H. S., c. 63, ss. 21 and 38.) CANADIVN TK Al)i;.M AKK \M) DUSION ACT. 843 INSI'ECTION. InsiJC'ctioii of rcji'iHtrrH. 41. Any person may bo allowed to inspect tlie re^'ister of trademarks or the register of industrial designs. Copiofl. 2. The minister ma\- cause copies fd' representations of trade marks or copies of representations of industrial de- signs to he delivered on the a|)f)lieant for the same f)aying the fee or fees |)rescrihed hy this act in that behalf. (K. S., c. 63, ss. 'JO and :{7.) PROCEDURE AS TO Rp:CTIFICATION AND ALTERATION. Exclu' t>.' h<'ard on tlu' aiiplicution. (54-55 V., c. 35,8. 1.) ron»ogistered trade mark or registered industrial design, shall be transmitted to the ndinster liy the Retristrar of the Court, and sueh register .shall thereupon be rectified or altered in conformity with .sueh order, or the purport of the order otherwise duly entered therein, as the ease may be. (R. S., e. i>i. s. M; 54-55 V., e. :^5, s. 1.) KVIDKNCE. No proof of si;.'iiiitun' of fi-rtificate rt-quirod. 45. Every ^-ertifieate under this act that any trade mark or industrial de.sign has been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of this act. which purports to be signed l)y the Minister or the Deputy Minister of Agriculture shall, without proof of the signature, be received in all courts in Canada as prima facie evidence of the facts therein allcLrcd. (11. S., c. 63, .ss. 13, 22 and 28.) FEES. TrI)1«' of f«'»'8. 40. The following shall be the fees in respect to registration under this act which shall be jtaid lo the minister in advance, that is to say: On i-vtrv upplicutioii to ri't,'iHt«r u ;,'- riflr trade mark, including; certiflcaU? 20 00 On e\ery application to re;;i«ter a deni^rn, including ccrtiflcat*-. . Tj.OO CAN\I>IA.\ TIC AUK.M AUK AND DKSKiN ACT, 845 On ovcry nppliontion ns to a (lrHi^;ii for an ••xtriiHioii of timi-, for fUfli year of hucIi cxtcnHioii, incliKliii;,' ccrtiCu-atr ^2 00 For a copy of every n-rtilicati' of rcf^iHtrution wparute from tin- return of tlie diiplioat*' 1 00 For tlie recordiiif,' of every aHHi;jnineiit 2 00 For eopieH of doounieiitH not al)ovc mentioned, for every hundred words or for every fractier as aforesaid, may have his timl»er mark reps- tennl upon depositing with the minister a drawinfj or impression and dewription in duplicate of sueh tiniher mark, tofiether with a declaration that the sjime is not and was not in use. to his knowledge, hy any person other than himself at the time of his adoption thereof. (>n icrtain londitiont* — CVrtificnt«'8 sliall 1»- i-v ulcncc. 2. The minister, on receipt of the fee hereinafter pro- vided, sjuill cause the said timher mark to 1k^ examined, to a-secrtain whether it resemhles any other mark already regis- tered : and. if lie finds that such mark is not identical with, or doe.s not so closely resemble any other timber mark al- ready reiristercd as to be confounded therewith, he shall repisttr thi- sam.'. ami shall retuni to the proprietor thereof one copy of the drawinjr and de.«?(^ription. with a certificate sifmed by the Minister or the Deputy Minister of Apricul- ture, to the eflFect that the said mark has been duly rejsristered in accordance with the provisions of this act ; and such cer- tificate shall further set forth the day. month and year of the entry thereof, in the proper reirister: and cvt-ry such certificate shall be received in all courts in Canada as cn-i- denee of the facts therein alle^red, without i)roof of the sig- nature. (R. S.. c. 64, s. 2.) Kxcliisi\r ri;;lit t«' us.- ri-;.'ist1:M MJK \.\li DKSKiN ACT. 847 receiving such petition, cause the .said mark to he cancelled ; and the same shall, after such cain'cllatioii. he considered as if it had never heeii re^'istered under the name of the said person. (R. S., c. 64, s. 4.) Tlf^jiHteri'd nmrkH iiHHifjniilili- ami lm\v. ('). Every tiinhor mark re^stered at the Department of Agri- cultiire shall he assi^niahle in law; and, on tlie production of the assit,Miment and the payment of the fee hereinafter mentioned, the minister shall cause the name of the assignee, with the date of the assignment, and such other details a.s he sees fit, to he entered on the inar^'iii of the rej^ister of timher marks on the folio where such iiuirk is refjistered. (R. S., c. 64, s. 5.) l)iir0 For each copy of any drawing:, tlie reasonable expenses of prepar- ing the same. For recording any assignment 1 00 2. Such fees shall be paid over by the Minister of Agri- culture to the ^Minister of Finance, and shall form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Paiuida. (R. S., c. 64, s. 8.) S48 APPENDIX a. Minittt«T may miikc ruli-x and lulnjit forms. 10. Tlio iiiiiiistiT may, from tinu' to tiino, suhjei-t ti> tin' approval of tlu" (iovcrnor in ('ouiicil. make rules and rc^iiliitioiis ami adopt forms for tlu' purposi's of this att. ( H. S., c. ('(4, s, fl.) OFFEINSES AND PKN.VLTU-S. Failinjr to wlort. rr;;intrr and uhc jiropi-r niarkn l>y lutnlMrmaii, «•(<•. — I'inalty. 11. Every p«'rson enpaped in the business of lumherinp or pettinp out timlu'r. and f!t)atinp or raftinp the same on the inland waters of Canatla. within tlie Provinces of Ontario. Quchec and N»'w Hrunswiek. who fails, within one month after he enpapes tlierein. to select a mark or marks, and cause sucli mark or marks to ho repistered in the manner hereinbefore provi(hMl, or to put the same in a conspicuous place on each lop or piece of tin)J)er so floated or raftetl. shall incur a penalty of fifty dollars (R. i^.. c. 64, s. 1. 7-S Kdward VII, c. 72, s. 2.) Markiii;: tiniluT with a mark ri'j,'istfrcr \\r\ h.rcl.y dcchirc that the said Ceneral Trade Mark waH not in use to my tor our] knowhdj,'e hy any other person than myself \<>r ours«lv.sl at tlie time of my for ourl adoption thereof. Tlie said General Trade Mark ccmsista of [ver- bal description of the trade mark]. A drawing of the said General Trade Murk is hereunto annexed. Sitnied at . this day of , lU— , in the preaence of the two undersijrnt-d witneasee. WitneBSOS: To the Minister of Agriculturi'. Ottawa. FORM TI.— DOMINION OF CANADA. THE TRADE MARK AND DESIGN ACT. Apjdication for re^'istration of n Specific Trade Mark. [To be made in duplicate.] I (,,r wel of the of i" tlie of . herehy request you to repister in the name of a Speciflc Trade Mark to he used in connection with the sale of which I [or we) verily heliev.' is mine [or ours] on account of havinj,' heeii the first to makt- uw of the same [or, on account of having acijuired it from who, I [or wel verily helieve, was [or were] the first to make use of the same]. I [or we] hereby declare tluit the said Specific Trademark was not in use to my [or ourl knowledge hy any other person than mywlf (or ourM-lveal at the time of my for ourl adoption thereof. Tlu» said Specific Trade Mark consists of [rrrbnl description of the Trade }fnrk]. A drawing of the said Specific Trade Mark is hereui\to annexed. Sipned at . this Jay of , 15>— , i" the presence of the two undersigned witnesses. Witn.'SHes: To the Miniht»-r of Agriculture. Ottawa. CANADIAN TItADK.MAKK ANP DESKIN ACT. 851 riiKM III.- Do.MIMiiN mF CANADA. THK TUADK MAUK AM) UKHKJ.N ACT. Application for ri'^,MHtrati(in of nn InduHlr'nil DiHiMii 1 7'o hi m,'n of a , of which I \or we] am | or art-l tl,j. proprietor IhJ. I I or we] dcdari' that the waid InduHtrial Design was not in use to my \or our| knowh-dgc liy any otlu-r jx-rson than myself \ot ourKclves] at tiie time of my [or our] adoption thereof. The said Industrial Desif^m consists of [verbal description of the Industrial DcHifjn]. A drawing of tlie said Industrial Design is hereunto anmxed. Signed at , this day of , I'J — , in the presence of the two undersigned witnesses. Witnesses: The Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa. FORM I\'.— DO.MIMON OF CANADA. THE TIMIJER MARKING ACT. Application for registration of a Timber Mark. [To he made in duplicate.] I, for we) of the of in the of , hereby request you to register in the name of , a Timber Mark which I [or we] hereby declare is not and was not in use to my [or our] knowledge by any person other than myself [or ourselves] at the time of my \or our] adoption thereof. The said timber mark consists of [verbal description of the timber mark]. A drawing of the said timber mark is hereunto annexed. ' Signed at , this day of , 19—, in the presence of the two undersigned witnesses. Witnesses: The Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa. APPKNDIX H FORMS OF BILLS AND ANSWERS. DKtl.AKArioN. (Warinr \. P.-mIit. V\i\. Ciisr No. ITISHA.) Tn till I ir»\ut roiirt <>f the I'liitrd Stiit.-rt in mul for the Northrrn District of Illinois. Ill I.IIK.HT H. \\ AHNKIl, Iriidiiij; aiul ,000. KllANK I50KIIK. J 11. II. \V., a citi/.i'ii of tin- state of N<\v York, trading; and doinp husi- ncM undtr tlu' firm narao and stylo of H. H. W . A; Co., at the city of RfK-h»'Bt<'r, in thi- county of Monnn', in said .state of New York, plaintiff, liv W. H. H. and .1. V. I... his attorneys, complains of V. U.. a citizen of the state of IllMH)is, and residing' and doinj; hiisiness at tlie city of Chi- cafio, in the county of r(M)k, in the said state of Illinois and in the dis- trict aforesaid, defendant, of a plea of tn-spass on the case. For that whereas, tin- said plaintiff shows that for several years last part he has Keen en;;aped, at tlw said city of Hocliester, in the nianti- facture and sah- of a certain nu-dieinal pn-parati*>n known as "War- ners Safe Kidney and I.iv.r lure," which preparation has hecomc uidely known throu;ih the domain of comnxree, and especially in all jiarts o{ the I'nited States, as a valualile medicine for various kinds of dis4-aHes of human l)ein;.'s. That in the introduction of said medicinal pr. piuat ion, and to hrin;: it to tlie att«'ntion of the puldic, he expended in advertisinjj tiie sum of aUmt five hundred tliousand dollars ($'»(>(),(l(KI ) , and in various ways has exjM'nded enormous sums of money to that en«l; tluit for a In-tter protection of his rijiht as proprietor, manufacturer and vendor of said meilicine he has caused peculiar hottles to In* manufactured to contain the hume. which Imttles have hlown into the ^'lass thereof the name of Kaid medicine, anperty, no otlier person, firm or corporation liavinj,' a ri^'ht to tlu' use of the same, eitlier in the identical form or in any such near rewmhlance thereto as might he cal- 852 FOKMS OF UUAJ^ \SD AN'SWKKS. 853 c'lilntod to di'ccivf", nor to allix to nifdicinc or mcrolinny virtui- of priority of udoptioii, ill conncctioM tvitli t^aid incdiciiic, tliiH pluintitf cuuH«'d thi; Banu' to lie n-cordfd in tlif l'at«'iit < Ulicf of the l'nit<'«l Statt-H, with a Htatciufiit Hpcc'ifyiii^ his name, domicili-, location and citi/.i-nHliip; tin? olawH of miTfliandiHr aiul tin- particular dcHcrijition of /:oodH com- prised in tlic <'lass to wiiicli tlic particular "trademark" liad Imth appro- priated \>y him; also a dcHcrijition of tlir "tradrniark" itwdf with fac- similca thereof, and a statement <>f tlie nnidc in which the aame ia appli(Kl and adixed to {,'oods and tlie len;jtli of time diirinjj which the said "trademark" has heen used hy him for tlie purpose r.foroBaiy the Commissioner of J'atents as provided in the act of ct)n'rres8 entitled "An act to authorize the registration of trademarks and jjrotect the same, ' approved March 3, 1881, as will more fully appear by reference to the certificate of registry of said trade- mark, numbered OoOT, dated the 8th day of August, 1882, signed by E. M. Marble, Commissioner of Patents, and attested by the seal of the Department of the Interior, wliich certificate is hereto attached and made jiart of this declaration. Plaintiff further shows that said "trademark" is applied and affixed to goodj by blowing it in the glass, as aforementioned, and by printing it on paper, which in the form of lal)els is afterwards pasted on the bottles containing the medicine, and it is also printed on wrappi-rs, or otherwise affixed to packages to be used in any manner calculated to notify purchasers of the contents and to guard against fraud. This plaintiff shows that he is the sole owner by right of priority of adoption and use of a c«'rtain other trademark consisting of a fac- aimilc of liis firm signature, "H. H. Warner & Co.," which said latter- mentioned "trademark" is j)rinted on a sejiarate label, and pasted over the cork of each bottle, after the same has Iteeii filled with said medi- cine Plaintiff further shows that he is the sole owner l>y rigiit of priority of adoption and use of a certain other trademark entitled "Book of $2,000.00 Prize Enigmas," containing tlie representation of a man, rep- resenting a botanist standing beside a jialm tree examining a plant through a magnifying glass, and other matters not necessary to be here mentioned, all tlie same being printed on the cover of a pamphlet. Plaintiff further sliows tiiat he is tiie sole owner by riglit of priority of adoption and use of a certain other trademark representing the front of a fire-proof safe, in the central part of which is shown a negro, on one knee gathering herbs, above whom are the words, "Warner's Safe," and below him are the words, "Kidney and Liver Cure." Plaintiff further shows that for the purpose of guarding against fraudulent imitations of his said medicine, and to authenticate tha So4 API'KNDIX II. piMiuinonooA of f;t>o<1, nnd nttll cnuR<-R. each UittU" of tlu- R«mi' to»it thr winn- iinutlifr printed fircuhir, print cd in Hc'voral dilTrrmt laii^jtiap'R; wliioli naid paniphlit cnntaiiu-d a grvnt many toHtimonialH of tin- iiitrinsii- value of »>aiil nudiciiu- an a n-iiKMly for varioud diwawx and disorders, and ais«» fncHitnilni of th<« ni^naturt-H of tho Hi^rm-rs of hiiid ti-Htimonials; and oaid pamphlet con- tainin);. amon); other matters, a ^'n-at many enigmaH for tlie solution of which larp' prizes were olTcred l>y the ])laintilT. Tliat as a further prei-a\ition a^'ainxt fraud, and an u nieaiiH of identification, the 8aid intMlicine i» packed in wooden Itoxes, wliicli Ixtxes contain eacli one dozen hottles of plaintilT'n medicine lalieled aud wrajiped as aforesaid, and U-arin^,' iipon oiie side of the hoxcH tlie following,' jiriiited words: "(>ne Do/en Warner's Safe Kidney and Liver Cure, Manufactured by H. H. Warner A; Co., Rochester, N. Y." And tlie naid plaintiff further nhows that lie has ever since the dates of tlie adoption of the said trademarks Wen and now is solely entitled to all the rights, interests and privile^'es therehy so secured unto him; and that the said medicine with the accompnnyin}; trademark has been extensively introduced to puldic use, and that larjre ijuaiititiea thereof, towit, several millions of bottles, have been purchasid and consumed by the public for which he has received several millions of dollars, and that he would but for the wronj.'ful acts of the said defendant, Frank I{(K-hr, have made further lar;;e ^ains, profits and advanta;.'e8 from the manufacture and sale of said medicine. And )>laintin' further shows that heretofore, to-wit, on or altout the day of October, A. D. 1S8;J, at the city of Chica;;o, in the district aforesaid, the said defendant Frank Hoehr, well knowinj,' the premises, and the ri;,'lits and privilej,'e9 theretofore secured unto him tlu- sjiid plaintiff, and in order to deprive him of his profits, benefits and advanta;.'e9 which mij,'ht and otherwise should and would have accrued to him at the said district, and else- whc-re, unlawfully, unjustly, and wronjrfully simulated the various aforesaid trademarks, circulars, labels, wrappers, packaj^es and boxes, in which said ^'eniiine medicine of this plaintilT has been put up for the purposes of commerce, and for the purpose of carryinj: into execu- tion his nefarious enter|)rise in that respect, the said difeiidant, V. R., employed lar;;e capital, and a lar;,'e number of assistants, including print<-rH, electrotypc-rs, photojrraphers, and other persons skilled in the arts necessary for the accomplishment of his unlawful jiurpose aforo- Kaid, and did make exact rej)resentations of the ^.'enniiie trademarks, labels, etc., hereinbefore descrilied, so closely resemltliii^' the jjenuine AS to be calculated to deceive purchasers, and which in many instances did actually deceive purchasers, who su])|)osed that they were biiyinp the genuine medicine manufactured as aforesaid by this |>laintitl', when in fart the simulated packa^res contained only u base fluid, colored vo reat'mblc the genuine medicine of the plaintitL FORMS OF nir,I*S AND ANSWKHS. 855 Plftintiff furthor bIiowh tlint sniil dcfcndniit, 1". IJ., mun'ifiictiin-d larj^e quuntitii-H of pncka^'CH iiiiidi' in exact ri'im-wiitatioii of tl'JH plaint- ifT's ^ciiuiiu' itai'kaf,M'H and roiitainiii}; inHidt; tlii-n-of the Bimulatcd laludH, wrappers, »'tc., luTcinlM-fon- dcMcrihcd, and liottlcH flUi-d with a fluid purporting to be thiH jjUiiiitill'M p-nuiin- ini'dicini-, hut whicli in fat't waH not ho, hut only a hasc imitation thin-of, and offcri-d for Hal" at the diHtrift aforesaid and elHcwhcrt', and did mdl larjjc (piantitii-H of the same, all of wiiieh naid \\ron;,'ful aet« of wiid defendant, F. K., were done without the knowIedj,'e, connent or aecjuiencenee of the said plaint- ifr, and witli the intent to injure and defraud him, to the damaf^c of this plaintiir of twenty-five thousand dollars (. $25,000 ) , and therefore he brings this suit. W. 11. B., J. F. L., Plaintiff's Attunirya. Indorsed: Filed Dec. (J, 1883, W.m. II. Bkadi.ey, Ckrh. BUJ. OF (OMl'LAINT. (Taylor v. Carpenter, 3 Story, 4.")8.) To the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis- trict of Massachusetts: J. T. and W. T., of the liorough of Leicester, in that part of the United Kingdom of (Jreat Britain and Indand called England, man- ufacturers, subjects of Victoria tlie First, queen of said kingdom, and aliens to each and all of the United States of America, and the territories and districts thereof, bring this bill of complaint against D. C, of F., in the said district of Massachusetts, manufacturer, a citizen of the said state of Massachusetts. And thereupon the said J. T. and W. T., complaining, say that for many years past they have been very exten- sively engaged in manufacturing cotton tiiread at Leicester aforesaid, and vending the same in large quantities, not only in England, but througiiout the United States, and in particular in the city of B., in said district. That their said thread is, and for many years has been, put up for sale on spools, and labeled on the top of the spools "Taylor's Persian Thread" in a circle, in the center of wliich is the number of the thread, and on the bottom of some of the spools "J. & W. Taylor, Leicester," and on the botton of others, "J. & W. Taylor," with the number of yards of thread on each spool, eacli spool usually containing two liundred yards or three hundred yards of thread, and tlie spools containing two hundred yards being l)lack and labeled "200 yds." on the bottom of the spool, and those containing three hundred yards being red, and labeled "300 yds." on the liottom of the spools. And on the center of some of the said labels on the bottom of each spool is stamped the symbol or print of the head and forepart of a lion ram- pant. And on the center of other of said labels is stamped a coat-of- 856 Ai'PKNnix H. arnirt. tin- hIiIi-U >vlun><)n conluiiis ti limi iiiin|iaiit, ai:J ovi-r tlu' Kiinic thnv Imllit with tho motto "In I)«h» (\»nftilo." And your orntorn fiirthtT Rny tlint thi-ir HjxHiIrt ho niarkfd, Htampod, ndon'd, or laltrhnl an nfore- liaii!, tiTt' put up for nnU' in jtapor cnvtloptH, rach containing; om- dozon of HptMdit; which Raid cnvchtpcH arc prepared and ntampcd hy your orattirs for wiid purpow, ami nomc of wiid cnvtdopcs hear in raiMHl httcrs stamped <>n tliem the inscription, "Tlic Persian Tliread, nuidc hy .1. A \V. Tayhir, hilM-h'd on tiic top of each spool, Tayhir's Persian Thread, and on the )>ottoni J. &. W. Tnyh)r, Leicest«T. The ah«ivc is for the prot«vtion of huyers a;;Hinst certain piratical articles of inferior ipmlity. frauilulently lal»eled witli the name «>f Taylor." And on other «>f the said envelojws is stam]>ed a coat-of-arms representing; u shield, the upjM'r division of wiiidi is j;ilt, and contains tliree red halls, and till- lower division theri'of is r«'d and contains the eflij;y of a lion rampant, with the motto under the same, "In I)*^) Confldo." Your «>rator8 fiirther show unto your honors that their said tlmad has lu-t^n and is manufactured of various sizes and numht-rs, to met-t the wants of the trade; and hy means of the care, skill and fidelity with which your orators have conducted the manufacture there«>f for a series of years, their said thread has accpiired a gnat reputation in the trade throu;;hout the United States, and lar;;e (juantities of the sami- an* constantly rey sundry jol>l>ers in the said city of B., as and for your orators' "Persian Thread," and that such complaints had arisen from the fraudulent imposition of sucli spurious article on the pulilic. Your orators further show unto your honors that their 8aid agent furtlier ascertained upon inquiry, and your orators charge the fa«ts to he, that the said spurious tliread so sold and olTered for Bale in the said city of B., or some of it, was furnished to the said joh- Ikth of I). ('., either hy him personally or hy one F. 1>. K., of B., his agent in that hehalf, and your orators are informed and helieve that the said D. C. has sold the said thread, put up, marked and designated KDH.MS OI" HILUS AN'n AN'SWKHS. 857 as afon-snifl, in tin- Haif tin- li^jhtH (»f your orators, and fraiidiili-ntly dcsi^'iiiti;^ to procuro tin* niHtom and trade of jM-rHoiiH wlio an- in tin- lialiit of vi-ndinj; or using yonr orators' Haid "Persian Tlin-ad," and to induco tlicin and the |)ul>lii' to Ik'IIi'vo tluit his said thnnd was in fact manufactured by your orators, liad fnj;Hp-d fxtf'nsivcly in the manufacture of wwinff cotton thread, and caused tlie same to !><• put up for sah; in enveh)pert and on spools siniihir to those used liy your orators, and so cohircd and Htanip<-d and hilieled as to resenihle exactly the said spools and enve- lopes used l>y your orators. And tlie said spool sewin;^ cotton thread, prepared hy tlie said 1). C and sold l>y him, and which he is en/,'aged in sellinj,' as aforesaid, is an exact imitation of the same article which your orators had heiii manufacturinfj as aforesaid, and sellinfj in the United States for many years l)eforc the said D. C. commenced his said frauduh'nt imitation tliereof. And the said spurious article, although inferior in (juality to the j^enuine Persian Thread manufactured by your orators, can only ho distin^'uished tlierefrom, so exact is the said D. C.'s imitation as aforesaid, hy a careful examination of its quality, and hv its fallin;; short in tlie number of yards contained on each spool from the number marked thereon as the contents thereof. And that the general appearance of the spurious article is the same as that of your orators' genuine thread, and well calculated ^o deceive those dealing in the purciiase and sale thereof. Your orators further show unto yoifr honors that their said general agent has obtained specimens of the said sjiurious Persian Thread so sold by the said I). C. That in some of the specimens thus olitained, the thread is put upon black spools, and in other of said specimens the thread is put upon red spools, and said black and red spools are of the same size and appear- ance with those used by your orators, on the top of which spurious spools there is pasted a round paper label, partly gilt, on which is printed in a circle the words "Taylor's Persian Thread," and in the center of the circle the number of the thread; and on the other end on the bottom of such spurious spools there is pasted a round paper label on some of w'lich is printed in a circle the words, "J. & \V. Taylor, Leicester," and on others, "J. «S: W. Taylor," with the number of yards of thread on the spools, and across others of the labels on said black spools the letters and figures "200 yds.," and on said red spools the letters and fimires "300 yards" a'e printed, and in the center of the said label tiieie is impressed the figure or symbol of the head and forepart of a lion rampant. And in other of said specimens the threaa is put on spools corresponding in all i)articulars to those herein just before described, except that the laliels on the bottom thereof bear a coat-of-arms, the center of the shield whereof contains a lion rampant, with three balls over the same, and with the motto under, "In Deo Confido." Your orators have also obtained specimens of the envelopes in which said D. C.'s spurious thread is put up and sold by him or his agent?, whicli bear the same inscription, letters and stamps that those used and employed by your orators bear. And in all these 858 APPKNDix n. particv.IiirA .if tlw IuIm-Ih .m ih.Ii . ikI < f Uio sai.l sp»irio\jR spools of thn-iul, niul tlu- «iiv«'1o|mi« in wliich tlicv an- put up. tiny an- .xactly liko tlu' »Miv.lo|x'8 uiul th»' IuIk-1h om thf r»Hp»'ctiv.' .iuIh of tin- f*p(H»lH of your orutor»' p-nuiuf IVrHian Throad, an luri'iulMfon- Btnttd. Vo\ir oratorrt furtli.-r hIiow unto your lionorH that tln-y liavi- not y<-t asoi-r- taiiutl thf «\t«nt to wlii.h the nuid IV C. Iuih tarrii-d hin wiid frautluh-nt imitation and m\r of your oratorn' hairators' naid f-iinral ajjmt lias found tin- winio olTtnd for nah- to tiio trade in at K-ant nix wlioirwih- <.r joMun;,' Iiouwb in tin- city «if H., aw '"Taylor'ti IVrsian Thn-ad" — from wliith your »)ratorM Ix-lifvi', and tiu-y then-fore chargt', on tlieir iM-lief. tiiat tlie said D. ('. Iuik l..-.n and i« enpip-d in wllinjr hii« Kaid frauduhnt and sjJurioUH imitation of your oratoru* '•Pirnian Thread" to a hir^e extent in vari.nis phieen in the United States, witli intent tliat tlie same shouhl eireuhite and he received and ufkHi l>y tlie puhlic as Taylor's p-nuine "IVrsian Thread." And your orators further show unto your ht)nors that the frauilulent and in- etjuitalde conduct of the said D. C. is not only injuring' tli«m in the sales of their said fjenuine 'Persian Tliread," and the jirofits which they would otherwiw reasonahly make thereon, hut hy the inferior quality and false measure the said spurious "Persian Thn-ad" is ^'reatly prejudicing' the reputation of your orators' said "Persian Thread" in the market, and., unless the said imitation is discontinued or jircvented, will ultimately destroy the duiraeter and standinj,' of tiie <;«nuine ar- ticle. And your orators also char<,'e that tlie said spurious article is a fraud and deception upon such of the citizens of tin- state of Massa- chusetts, and of the United States, as purcliase the same, helieving it to be the genuine article manufactured hy your orators. And your orators further show unto your honors tliat in the month of March last past, having discovered a portion of the aforesaid fraudulent con- duct of the said 1). C, your orators did file their hill of complaint be- fore the chancellor of the stati- of New York, wherein they set forth many of the facts which are in substance hereiiilufore stated, and prayed for an injunction to restrain tlie said D. C". from the afore- said fraudulent use of the name and trademarks «if your orators, and the same was granted hy the court; and the said 1). C. having appeared and filed his answer to the said bill, did therein admit that he had used the name and trademark of your orators in manner set forth in the bill afonsaid; but denied that the article manufactured by him was of inferior cpia'ity to that manufactured by your orators; and afterwards an applicHtioii was ma, lalnled, and ajipeariiig precisely likt- that made, FORMS OK I'.II.I.- \NH WSWKKS. 850 put up, and sold liv voiir (natoiH, nml \<>iir orfttorB continuo to \tc ;j;ri'utly iiijuri'd tlicrrlty. In coiisidcnitidii wlicn-of, and for as iniicli as your orators an- rcmc?- dilcHH in til*- pn-iniHi-s at roniuion law, and can not have udcijuaU; re- lief save by tin- aid and interposition of tliia court, to the end, there- fore, that tlif said D. ( '.. if lie can, kIiow wliy your orators nhoiild not have tlie relief In-n-liy prayrd, and may upon iiis corporal oath, and aecordin;r to the hist and utmost of his knowlcdfje, remcmliranci-, in- formation and lielief, full, true, direct and jterfect answers make to the several interro^^atories hereinafter luimhered and set fortli ; and the said 1). C". and his attorneys, solicitors, counselors, af,'ents and servants may he enjoined and restrained fmm manufacturinf^, s«dlinj^ or ofTcriiiji fur sale, directly or indirectly, any spool cotton sewinfj tlinad nninufaetured liy him or any person other than your orators, under the denomination of "Taylor's Persian Thread," or on spools with the Words, "Taylor's Persian Thread," or "J. & W. Taylor, Leicester," or "J. «Sc W. Taylor," printed, painted, written, or stamped, or attached or pasted thereon, or witli your orators' said device of a lion rampant, or with their said coat-of-arms thereon; or on spools so made or having' any lal)el, j)rintin{^ or device tiiereon, in such man- ner as to be colorable imitations of your orators' said spool thread, usually known as "Taylor's IVrsian Thread," and that the said D. C. may be decreed to account to your orators for all the profits which he has made by the sale of his said fraudulent imitation of your orators' thread, and all the profits which your orators would have made on the sales of their genuini- thread but for tlie said D. C.'s inen to hiH knowh'tlj;!-, and in an far an it 8tat»-H matl«Th within his iH-lirf, it* trut- to liin hont Krlicf. W. W. S., Cnvtviissinnrr, rtr. Intrrro^intorios In l.r an^u.-r..! l.\ 1). ( .: 1. WhctlnT or not liavr voii inaiiufactiir.tl ami >«>1<1. in MaHsatliu- wtt»« or t'lm-whrn'. tliri-ad |>nt npon l.hu-k hjhmiIs. on om- md of rarli of which hjmmiIh {h pasti-d. or otlurwiw fast«'iu>d. a cirtuhir i»H|Mr lalK'l partly j;ilt. on whiili i« printfd in a rirch- tin- words "Taylorn Trrxian Thn-ad." and in thf renter thereof th<' nnnil>er of tlie tlireas tlie same lalxd '"200 yds.," and in the center of the sanu> hil>el tliere is impressed the fijnire or symbol of a lion rampant? 2. Whether or not yon have manufactured and sold, in Massachu- wtts or els<-\vhere, thread i»ut ui)on red spools, correspondinjj in all resiKK-ts to the black sjKxds describ<'d in tiie preceding interro;,'atory. except in the color of the spind and in the (pumtity of thread tliereon ; and in the letters and fijnir«'8 "300 yds." i)rinted across tlie said white jiajK«r label? ."{. What numlxT of each kind <>f tlie said spools of thread have you manufactured and sohl V State the same accurately, and distin- ^aiish the ki; ". and numl>er of the thread, and the number of black hpersons in particular have yi^u sold the said thread put up in the mann.-r descril)ed in the first and sectrnd inter- ro(;atories? «. Who is, and who has been, your a-^ent in Boston for the sale «>f your threa for nali- on hjiooIh ximiliir to tliow uwd hy the coinpliiiiuiiitH. and ho folon-d, Htumprd iind lalx-lcd uh to rftM-mbli; i'xuctly or as nearly uh the Bame could la; done, the Baid Hp(K>lH um-d Itv tile eonii)lainantH, and the said npool Hewing cotton, which haH hecn prepared uiul sold liy you, ih an «'xact imitation of the Hame articlu wiiieh the complainaiitH had lieen Hellinj,' in the United States many v«'ars before you coniineiu-ed manufacturing^ your thread? 8. Whetiier or not have you manufactured and sold in MaHwicliu- settH a«"win)( cotton thread upon black Hpoola and ujton n-d Hpools, on one end of each of which is fastened a circular paper label, described as in inter ro;,'atory numbered 1. and on the other end is fastened a- circular i)aper label on which is stampe»t, in tlu- city of New York, under the nuinc i>f The David« Manufacturinj: riimpany, and thereupt.n your orator ci.midainH and Kays: 1. That your orator is the owner of a trademark used in commerc<- amonjj the wveral states of the United States of America, and is domi «iled within the territ«)ry of the United States, and was such owner and was so doniicihil on t.r before tlu- tenth day of .luly. VMM, and has iH-en such owner continuously since said date, and also been continjially bo »lt»micilerk continuously ever since 182.'), and all of the inks, niucilap-, i)aste and similar articles manufac- tured and s«>ld by yoiir orator and its predecessorB have born*- said trade- mark upon a suitable label on the bottles containinj; the same and has lM-«n sold undi-r said trademark and said trademark has been used con- tinuously by your orator and its predect'ssors in commerce amon;,' the wveral states for ov.r ei;;hty years now last past, and tluit said articles have acpiired the bi;:hest reputation in the market for puuls of this desc-ription, namely, inks, mucila;;e and paste, and said {;(.ods have In^come and now are very popular and wi-ll-known tlinm;;hout the I'liited States as "Davids' Inks," "Davids' Mucilajre" and "Davids" Paste." 2. That st> beinji the owner of said trademark on the tenth day of July, VM)(\, your orator filed in the Patent OHiee of the United States on Mtid date an application for re;;istration for such trademark; said applica- tion iM-inp in writing', addressed to tlie Commission, r of Patents, sij^ned by the applicant, specifying; its luime, dplied and alVixed to j^'oods, and the len^'th of time during which the said trademark had been used. Witii this statement was filed a drawing' of the trailemark, si;rned by tin- ajiplicant. or its attorney, and such number of Hpc-cimeiis of the trademark *s actually us«'d, as were ref I'atents. And your orator paid into the Treasury of the United States the num of ten dollars and other- wise complied with the re<|uirement8 of the Act of Congress entitled "An act to authorize the registration ttf trademarks uwd in ct)mmerce with foreign nations or among the wveral states, or with Indian tribes, and to protect the same," wliich act was approved February 2(1. IHO.'). Said application was accompanied by a written declaration v.ri(ied by an ofTicer of the corporation applying to the elT.-ct tliat tlie applicant believed the coriH>ration in whose behalf he made the application to be owui-r of the trademark sought to Is- registered, ami tlmt no oth.r person, firm, corporation or association «<• tl.e b.Kt of tlir applicant's knowledge FOU.MS OK HI LI--; AM) ANSWKltS. 863 nnd lulicf lind tlic ri;;lit t<> hikIi iiw lillHT in tlic iflfiitical furm or in Huc'li lU'iir n-Hcmlilnncc tlu-rcto jih nii;,'lit he c-Hlctiliitt-d to dccr-ivi-; that Hucli trudi'inurk \vu8 uHcd in conimcrci- amoiif^ tlie bi'VithI HtateH and that tlu' di'Hcriptioii and drawinj^ prt-Hcntfd truly reprcscntod the trademark 80U{ilit to hf rcj^irttfri'd ; wliicli Haid declaration was strictly in ac(orlication thereof took ])lace and no notice of o|)poHition heing filed thereto, registration of said trademark was duly granted according to law and a certificate of regis- tration was tliereafter, to wit, on the 22nd day of .lanuary, 1!M)7, issued to your orator whicli certificate was numi)ered r>!»,8i(8, pursuant to Section 11 of the aforementioned act; which said certificate of regis- tration is still in force, and of which your orator tiien was and now is the sole and exclusive owner, as hy said original certificate of regis- tration or a duly authenticated copy thereof here in court to he pro- duced will more fully and at large appear. 4. That tiie trademark so registered as ahove set forth was origi- nally adopted hy your orator's predecessors in husiness, lieing tlien the owner of the mark, to wit, ahout the year 182"), as a mark hy whicli the goods of the said owner may I)e distinguished from other goods of the same class, and said mark lias hcen continuously used for said purpose by your orator and its predecessors in business since said date and is still so used, and as a matter of fact said mark has distinguished the goods made hy your orator and its predecessors as owners of the mark from other goods of the same class, and said mark was in actual and exclusive use a trademark of the applicant or its predecessors from whom it derived title for ten years next prec<'ding the passage of the ahove nijntioncd Act of Congress, approved Fel>ruary 20, 1905; all as provided in Section 5 of said act, and your orator is advised and believes that by reason of the fact that said trademark has been in actual and exclusive use as trademark of youi orator as applicant or your orator's predecessors from whom your orators derived title for more than ten years next preceding the passage of said act, said trademark was dis- tinctly and in terms dcclan'd hy said act to be entitled to registration as a good and valid trademark in the United States I'atent Ollice, and that the registration ahove mentioned was and is a valid registration and is entitled to the protection of this court irrespective of the par- ticular character of said mark. 5. Your orator is advised and believes and therefore shows to your honors that it was the intent of Congress in passing said a-rt and was the legal effect of said act as passed to regard all trademarks, irrespective 864 APPENDIX II. of tlu-ir imrtii-ulur rhanutrr. wU'hU liail lutuiilly 1m>.'ii iikimI .•xihisivi-ly by thi'ir owm-r for tm y«'»rH or moro l)ofort' the puHHiim- of wud lut, by which thr j-wkIh of miiil owiu-r wen- in fart tUHtin;;uiHlH-il from other ^•ihhIh of thf num.- i-hiHH hh VfwtiMl ri;rhtH whicli wii«i lut HhoiiUl not in any way take away «>r (liniinii«)i hut wliii-li wiid rights Hluitihl, wlu-n UKetl in interntate «omm.r»f, Ih- cndowfd witli all the ri;;litH of rc^'iKt ration and protection which was alTonh-d to any hiwfiil tradenuirk under wiid act. All of whicli appearn hy Section 1 and Section 2 of wiid act, and osptTially the ftnirth proviwj of tlaust- b of Section ;'>. Your orator th«refore claitnH the prot«i-tion of thiH honorahle court for itn »aid rcjjiH- tered trathinark No. .V.l.8!»8, dated .lanuary 22, 1»07, aa a vcbtod ri^ht of over ten yearrt Htandin;: at tiie odH of vour orator and its predecessors in Imsiness was placing' the name in prominent letters on tlie lahel whicli was i)asted on tlie hotths cds was placed at aix)ut the middle of the lahel, and the name of your «irator'« company, to wit, Thaddeiis Davids Company. New York, wa-* plac<'d at or near the hottom of tlie lahel. The other words, fi^nires or characters were so nrran^-ed that tlie word Davids', the name of the article, Buch as Ulue Ink,' Carmine Ink, Scarlet Ink, On-en Ink. Writing and Copyinp Ink, and so forth, appeared as the most prominent part of the lalK"!, bo that at a distance at which the smaller type could not be read the mark st(M>d out as, for example, Davids' Blue Ink, Thaddeua Tavids Company. All of which will more fully and at large appear I'rom the lahels tliemselves here in court to he produced. 7. That said trademark and tlie right to the e.xdu.sive use thereof is of great value to your orator, and any infringement thereof or any iiso of a mark so closely resemlding the same as to mislead the public into believing that they are procuring your orator's goods when they are not your orator's goods is likely to cause irreparable injury to your orator, and to deprive your orator of the just reward and fruits of its well earned reputation for inks, mucilage and ])aste, by reason of the fact that your orator's goods have become \\v\l and very extensively known by the short designation of Davids' Ink, Davids" Mucilage, and Davids' Paste. 8. That your orator and its predecessors have made and sold under Haid registered trademark, and are now making and selling thereunder quite a lirge variety of inks, mucilage and paste, such as several kinds of black ink, blue ink, green ink, carmine ink, scarlet ink, copying ink, and n-cord ink, writing fluids, stylo;;rapliie p.ii ink, lettering ink, and wveral kinds of jiaste and mucilage, all of whicli have lieen known in the market aiul are called for as Davids' Inks, or Davids* Paste, or Davids' Mucilage. Hy reason of this fact piirrhasers and tin' piililic generally in tlie purchase of BUch urticles have come to identify tho FOK.MS OF MIM*S ANl) ANSWKUK. 8G5 Hunic an of your oraforM iniiinifactnro larfjcly, if not ontin-ly, f)y roason l of tli(> word DiivIiIh' and tlit- word Ink or th«! word I'aHto or tlic word Mucilage uh the nioHt prominent part of tlu' lal»'l, puyin;^ little, if any attention to tin- color or otln-r character- iHticH of tilt' various lal>»'ln, wliich color aiul ciuiracti-riMticH arc Muhjcct to change, and as hefore stated present ipiite a Iar;;e variety of appearanccH. f). That defendant, ("ortlaiul I. Davids, entered the omi)loy of your orator as book-keeper about the month of .Fune, MX)."), and remained in said employ for a period of nine niontiis; and the other defendant. Waller I. Davids, entered your orato'-'s employ an asHiHtant iMmk-keeper some tinn- in tlie year 1!M)4, and rem^iwied in said employ until about the montli of Marcii, iJtOti; tiuit both of said deferulants wliile in said emjiloyment became familiar with your orator's manufacture of inkH, mucilage and paste from seeing the same constantly al)out your orator's show rooms and ollice at 1J7 William jtreet, Now York City, where they were employei' ..nd from tiieir position as book-keeper and assistant book-keeper became aware of the popularity and demand for said goods, and to a large extent became familiar with the names of your orator's customers and the quality of said goods usually purchased by said ciistomers. 10. That somewhere al)out tlie montli of Marcli, lOOCi, your orator for good cause discharged the said two defendants from its said employ, since which time there has been no business connection or employment of any sort between your orator and the defendants or either of them, and no authority has ever been given by your orator to said defenflants or either of them to use said trademark or to manufacture or sell anv inks, mucilage or paste bearing in any form the word Davids' thereon, or on any label attached thereto, or to hold themselves out as liaving any connection with your orator or its products or process of manu- facture. 11. That prior to said March, 1006, neither of tlie defendants, so far as your orator is informed and believes had ever undertaken to make or sell or put on the market any inks or mucilage or paste in any form, nor had lield themselves out in any way as being manufacturers of such articles; but that some time after their said discharge, but how lon<' your orator cannot say, deftMidants associated themselves togetlier in the business of making and selling inks, mucilage, j)aste, and contriving and intending to injure your orator in its business, and to divert to themselves the benefit and advantage wiiicli otherwise would have accrued to vour orator from the excellcjice and jiopularity of its said goods known to the trade as Davids' Ink, Davids' Mucilage, Davids' Paste, defendants adopted as a tradename the firm name and style "Davids Manufacturin" Company ', and began putting on trie market inks, mucilage and paste in bottles on whicli were pasted labels at the top of which the wort* Davids' appeared in prominent type, at tin- middle of which ai)peared the word Ink, or the word Mucilage, or the word Paste, as the case might be, appeared in jiromineut type, and at the bottom of which lab^ S6G APPEM>I\ It. tJii' wi>ril« Dnviiln Miuuifiuturint; roiiii>aiiv ii])|iiaril(t th«> Mini<- aiul oITiT(*<1 the Hiimc for k»Ii- hs DuviiiH* Ink. Dnvidfl' Mm'ilujri- hihI DuvjiIh' I'uHtv, by mimm (»f wliicli wiul (^ihhIh ki) liil>«>ll(>(l M»T«' culriiluttil to dtffivf thr public imd did intimlly dcci-ivi- tin- puhlic in mnny in«tancf» into tli«- iM-lit-f tlint in Imyin^' dcfcndunt'H ^'oodH tlu'V wen- Imvinj; y«iiir orntor'H ^joodH, whcn-liy j;n-nt confunion wan rn-att'd in the market bh to tlu' origin of Raid j;«kmIh to the jjn-at damap' and injury of your orator and infrinjri'ini'nt of your orator'H n-^iHtt-n-d trademark, as well BH your orator'H vented rit.'htH of trademark at rommon law. 12. That defendantH ho manufactured and .wld naid articlei) and bo laU'Ued tluni in infrin;;enient of your orator'n re^risteri-d trademark aa altove set forth not only witliin the Soutliem Dintrict of New York, but in commerce amon^ tin- wvj-ral ntates, and iiave therel)y cauH4>d and arc tlireateninjj to continue to cauw ^'n-at and irreparable injury to your orator'H naid buHinena unleas defendants can be rentraincd by order of tluH honorable court. l.'l. That the (>p«>cific act of infringement heroin complained of bh a(T»*ctinjr your orator's said ro;.'i8tered trademark consisted, not in the mere use of the word DavidH* without otiierwise lalM'lin;r their noods to produce confusion (your orator having' no objection to the mere use of the name V. I. Davids on defendant's j.;oods) but in settin;; said word Davids' in prominent type at tlie top of the label, the word Ink, Paste or Mucilai^e also in prominent type near the middle of the label, and the arbitrary adopted trade name of Davids Manufacturing Company in imitation of your orator's trade name Thaddeus Davids Company at the bottom of the label. 14. That said use of your orator's re;iistered trademark on the part of naid defendants and the puttin;,' of their goods on the market as and for your orator's goods constitute, as your orator is advised, not only an infringement of your orator's lawful trademark, but also unfair and \inlawful competition on the part of defendants, which, if continued, will cause irreparable loss and injury to your orator. Wherefore, as your orator can have no adequate relief except in the court of iKpiity, may it please your lionors to grant unto yo\ir orator a writ of Hubptena, issuing out of and undi-r said seal of this honorable court, directed to the sai <>f tlicir IiiIhIh in c-omu-ction witli the Ijiihi- noHH of mnkiii^ ami Hcllin;^' iiikH, niiKMlii^^f or |)iiHt<-, and from Htdliii^ or •ifrcriinr for Hale tlnir j^oods uh DavidH' Ink, DavidH' I'aHtc or DuvidH* Miicilap- in niicli nianncr aH ih c-alculatcd to deceive tlio pulilic or miH- li'ud it into the liidicf tliat any inkn, iniu-ilagc or puHtc miinufai-tun-d by di'fcndunta are of the manufacture of your orator; and from doin)( any other acts or things which are intended or calculated to create confuHiun aa to the ori{,'in of your orator's poodH, and from attemptinj^ to divert to defendants any part of the trade which your orator lias huilt, in connection witii its prt-deceHSorw, or \>y means of naid tradimark and \>y means of your orator's well earned reputation for suiteriority of floods. And your orator prays in this rej^'ard not only a i)relimiiiary injunc- tion restraining,' defendants, their servants, a;,'ents or attorneys as here- inbefore prayed during the pendency of this suit, but also a perpetual injunction and for such other and furtiier relief as your honors may seem meet. And your orator will ev»r pray, etc. By L. A. Davids, Prraiilmt. \V. 1'. r. Jr., TnADUEUS Davids Company, Solicitor and of Counsel for Complninnnt. BILL OF COMPLAINT. (Carson v. Ury, 3!) Fed. Rep. 777.) In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Kastern Judicial District of Missouri. James Carson, Complainant, vs. Henry L'ry, Harriet Ury. Eichakd \ In Ktjuity. Ury, Erskine Mansfield and A. Bei.inek, Defendants. J J. C, a resident and citizen of the city of New York, in the state of New York, files this his amended bill of complaint, under leave of court had and obtained, ajrainst the above dcfi-ndants, H. U., H. U., R. U., E. M. and A. B., all of whom are citizens of the state of Missouri and residents of the city of St. Louis, in the eastern division of the eastern judicial district of the said state, and thereupon your orator complains and says: First. That your orator for more than seven years has been and now is a member of tiie Cigar Makers' International Union of Amer- ica; that the members of said union are severally cigar makers residing in the United States, and said union is a voluntary unincorporated association of practical cigar makers formed for the purpose of pro- moting the mental, moral and physical welfare of the members, by assisting them to obtain labor at remunerative wages, by affording 868 ArrFNDix ir. thfin jHTuninry aid in caKo of HitkiiiHs uiul jtrox idin;^ moin-y in cam* of dcatli, and generally to maintain a lii;;h Htandard of wurkniuiiHliip and fair wap'M of ri^'ar makiTH. S«Tond. That tin- «|Ufhti«»n wliiili in tin- Hiil>ji'rt of llii« action in one nf rommon and p'n«>ral intiToHt to all mctnlMTB of the Cif^r Makers' International I'nion of Amrrifa, antl tliat tlu-y an- vt-ry nnmcroim, iK'inj; ovi-r twrnty-fivi' thouHand in nunilnT. and tiiat it in im|inifti cahh', thcroforr, to hrin;; tlu-m all iM-forc thr court in tliirt action. Third. That an your t>rator in informed and hdicvcH, for tho pur- poHo of dcKi^rnntinj; the manufacturin;,' of nicmlMTs of tiic C'i;,'ar Makcrn' International I'nion of America, tiie said union thrmi^'h itH dele^^ati'H in convention aHHemhIeil in t'hica;io in tin* month of Septt'mlM-r, 1880, deviMHl and adopted a trademark, or l«l>el to which they jjavo the name of "Union Label," a facsimile of which is annexed hereto and marked "K.vhiliit A;" that prior to the adoption of Haid lalK-l the hanie had not l>e«'n known or in uw in this country or elsewln-ro, and ever since said adoption the memluTH of the Ci^-ar Makers*' Interna- tional I'nion of America have exclusively used said lahels, and the name hav«' Imh-u conspicuously posted on the outside of cij;ar boxes rtmtainin;; ci;;ars made by the members of said Cigar Makers' Inter- national Union of America. Fourth. That the members of said union are by the constitution and laws of said union aUowed to make and sell cigars, and to use on such cigars so made and sold by thc-m labels like said "Kxhibit A," provided they do not employ others to make said cigars; and that your orator for about two years last past has been making and selling cigars in the city of New York aforesaid and has used there the labels like said "Kxhibit A," and has built up a profitable trade for liims<-lf under said label, and that your orat«>r was the owner of the cigars which he thus made and sold under said label to the public. Fifth. That the said label aflixed to cigar boxes is intended as a giiaranty that the cigars therein contained are manufactured by mem- Imts of the Cigar Makers' International I'nion of Anu-rica, ami that good and ch-an workmanship has thereby been secure*!; and that the cigars were not made in tenement houses or state prisons or by coolies, and for these reasons the cigars so labeled command a liiglier priw in the market than cigars of similar appearance, but without such label, can command; that there is a large dennind among the public for cigars having said label, wliich deniand has been growing every year since the organization of said union, and the use of said label has In-en and is a sourcj- of great profit ami advantage to your orator and to the other meml>ers of said union. Sixth. That it is the |>ractice of said nniim to furnisli gratuitouslv copies of the genuine laliel marked "Kxhibit \" to all nuuiufactur- ers of cigars in the United States who employ exclusively memlHTS of the said union, who themselves own and S4-1I the cigars which they make. 1«X3HMS OK HIM*S ASM) ANSWTCRS. 860 Sovontli. Tliat tlic \va;;i'H (Iriiuiiidrd mill rcecivril Ity tin- numlHTH of Hiiid union, arc alxnit tlin-f dullarH liinln-r py oIIht wurkmi-n, and tliat union-made ci^.Mirs, that in, hoxvn of ci^jurH carryinj^ tin* Haid lalitdM, luinj; in tin- market aliout three dolhirn more jier tlioUHand than Huch ci;,'arH would hrin;,' witliout Hueli lal)elH; tiiat tliiH iH the caw \n-rii\im: tile cijiars h,' baid lahelH are known to tlie nuhlic to he made hy competent workmen in eh-an and liealtliy HhopH. iM^htii. 'I'iiat hy th<' use of naid j^eiiuine hiitelrt aH aforenaid, your orator and otlier memhers of nairiHon lahor, or coolie lahor, or who do not jiay the re(|uired stale of wa;;es demanded hy said union, and that said ur.'.on does not s( 11 any such laix-ls either to manufacturers or to the puhlic. Tenth. That as your orator is informed and helieves, since the adoption and use of said hihel hy said union, and since the time when your orator commenced to sell cigars hearing said genuine lahel, the said defendants have conspired and federated together to cheat and defraud your orator and the memhers of said union so using said label as aforesaid, and fraudulently impose ujion manufacturers and dealers in cigars and upon the jmhlie hy manufacturing and offering for sale and selling and giving away for use on cigar boxes, labels which are spurious and counterfeits of said genuine labels, and in furtherance of this fraudulent and illegal business have adopted the name "B. Alberts." That your orator is informed and believes that the said name of B. Alberta is fictitious and that there is no person of that name, but that the same was first adopted by defendant B. ; but however this may be, your orator further says that said defend- ants under said name have manufactured, offered for sale and sold spurious and counterfeit labels for use as aforesaid — a copy of wliich said spurious and counterfeit label is hereto annexed, marked "Ex- hibit B." That the spurious label so offered and given away and sold by said defendants under the said name of B. Alberts is a close imitation and counterfeit of the genuine adopted by said union as aforesaid. That the said defendants have also lately inserted an ad- vertisement in the United States Tobacco Journal, a newspaper pub- lished in the city of New York, state of New York, and in other pub- lications, representing to the public that they had for sale copies of said genuine label, issued by authority of said Cigar Makers* Inter- national Union of America, and containing a representation of such label. All of which acts of said defendants are done without the au- thority or permission of your orator or the officers and members of said union, and against its will and protest. That in furtherance of said fraudulent and illegal purposes, and with the intent to cheat and defraud as aforesaid, said defendants have published a fictitious ad 870 AiM*KM>ix n. «lro««, in RAul nnmo of n. AIlM>rtH ft« nforonni*!, towit : No. 222 Pino Str«vt, in tlu" city nf St. I..<>uiH, tlii-ro InMn^ no person l>y tlic nunn* of li. AIlHTtH Ht Mtiil acl(iri*HH, iind liavi> ciuiwd ail mail tliiTi* r«'Cfivf tltfir adM-rtiminrnts to Im> dclivfrid to tin- phi' • of huHi- lU'HH of Kail! difi-nilantH. 11. V. unci H. V., witli wliom, an your orator in informal, tin- otinr and niinlfad tlio i)iil)Iic into the iH'lii'f tliat Haid «li-f»'nm saitl union to wll or j;ivc away waid piiuini- IhIm'Ih, and furtln-r tend to dofcivo tlu' puldic into t'lc lirlicf tiuit tin- cipirH thuH laln-lfd hy tin- puroluiwrs of said laln-lrt from tlic dcfi-nd- antu an- tin* t-i^'ars made and 8old l»y your orator and surli otlirr nuikcru of cigars an have autliority to iih(> tiH> p>nuino Ial><-1 of said union; and they furth»T tend to di-ccive the puhlio into tlic l^-Iiff that the falw^ and spurious labels sold and ofTereil for sale, or ;;ivrs of .naid Cigar Makers' International I'nion of Ameriea have, a valued and pt'cuniary interest in the genuine labels issued hy said union, and used liy the memhi-rs thereof, and that he has, and they have, sutFered irreparable damage by the wrongful acts of said defendants, and that, if suffered to continue, the wrongful acta of said defendants will tend to produce further irr«'parabh> damage to your orator and to the other n)enil>ers of said Cigar Makers' International I'nion of America. Thirteenth. That your orator has no adequate remedy at law for said injury. FourtcM-nth. That said injury can not be adef your orator, liuvc tliu firect to and do »'ncoura;^i' and induco otluTH to diHn-j^ard your orator's rightit in till' pri'iniHi'H. And your orator jirays tliat said difciidaiitH, 11. \'., H. 1'., I{. U., K. M. and A. B., tlit'ir w-rvantH, aj,'i'ntH, attornryH and workmi-n, and rat'ii and ovory of tlit-m, may hi- n-Htrainrd and rnjoinrd proviHionally and j)rrpi'tually, l)y tiu- ordi-r and injunction of tliiH lionoraldi- court, from directly or indirectly makint;, using, vending, delivering or in anywise counterfeiting or imitating said genuine label of the Cigar ^Makers, International Union of America, or from making, selling or oirering for sale or giving away any labels iikr or similar to those issued hy said Cigar Makers' International I'nion of America, and that tiie defendant may he decreed to pay tlie costs of this suit, and that your orator may have such further or such other relief as to this honorable court shall seem meet and as shall seem agreeabe to equity. An answer under oath is hereby exprvssly waived. May it please your honors to grant unto your orator tlie writ of in- junction, aa well provisional as perpetual, issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, commanding, enjoining and restrain- ing said defendants. H. U., H. U., K. U., K. M. and A. B., command- ing them by a certain day and under certain penalty to be and appear in this honoruble court tlien and there to answer the j)remises and to stand to and abide sucli order and decree as may lie made against them. And your orator will ever pray, etc. A. K.. of Counsel. B., S. & K.. Complainants' Solicitors, icith II horn arc II. 0. d J. State of New York, ) f^outhcrn District of Xcw York, K ss. City and County of New York, j J. C, being duly sworn, says that he is the complainant named in the foregoing complaint, that he has read said complaint, and that the allegations contained therein are true except those which are stated therein to be alleged on ini.irmation and belief, and as to those he be- lieves said complaint to be true. Sworn to before me this 23d day of Mareli, ISS!). H. M. T., Notary Public of Ycto yo77i; County. 872 viM'K.\i>ix I'. Itll.l. <»1.- rnMI'l.AlNl". (Mil., when said K. formed a partnersliip with one .1. F. under the name and style of J. K. & Co.. and said K. invested said firm with the full right to make and sell said ])ills, and to use the name thereof, ami said firm engaged largely in the husiness of making and sidling said pills, and in orch-r to designate the same as an article of their own manufacture, and to prevent imposition and fraud U|M)n the puhlic and persons desiring to i»ureliase the same, Haid firm, during or hefore tlie year 1847 commenced piitting up said pills in wooden hoxes of uniform si/.e, shape and appearance, having jwrjM-nilicular sides, with top and hottom of elliptical shape, said Im>x containing twenty-two pills, anil caused the words "McLane's I^iver Pill" to 1m' stamped in red wax iipon tin* cov«r of each hox; and in further pursiiance of their said design to ctH.," ••n- ^ravi'd tlu'rt'on and appcarinfj in wliito IctttTH Hliadcd by rt-d lini'H; and on tin- portion of waid wrai)p<'r oovcrin}^ tlu' ri-ar side of tin- Jk)X u pani'l of similar liack^iroiind surrounded l»y a border of dark red and white lines ap|)earin;,' interlaced or woven, and with the worda followin},' to-wit: "In future my liver ])'\\]h will have a red steel en- graved wrapper, and my name in red wax on each box," appearinj^ thiToon in white letters shaded by red lines, and liavin}^ also a fac- aimili- of the si<,'nature of C ^IcLane enf,'raved and printed in red ink at tli«' bottom thereof; and upon th« portion of the said wrapper coverin}^ the front side of the box a panel with a border and back- ground similar to that last mentioned, having the words "Prepared for the i)roprietor by J. K. & Co., No. 00 Wood St., Pittsburgh, Pa.," there- on in white letters shaded with red lines and also the words "None can be genuine without the signature of J. K. Sc Co.," printed thereon in red ink the words "J. K. & Co." being a fac-similc of said firm's signature. A copy of said label is hereto annexed marked "B," and made part hereof, one of which labels or trademarks was placed on and around each box of said pills made and sold by said firm. The said firm being thus the sole and exclusive owners of said pills and of the recipe for making the same, and of the said token-label or trademark, and the plates for the same, exclusively made, put up and sold said pills and said label and trademark thereon, and brought the same into notice, and, by the expenditure of large sums of money in advertising and by the exercise of energy and skill, they gave to said pills a wide and enviable reputation, and they derived from the manufac- ture and sale thereof large profits. Your orator states further that on the 2flth day of March, IS.")."}, said J. K. died leaving the said J. F. the sole surviving partner of said firm of J. K. & Co., who continued tlie business of said firm, and on or about the 30th day of April, IS't'.i, the executors of said J. K. for the sum of thirty-four thousand dollars, and other considerations, conveyed to said surviving partner, J. F. and to your orator jointly, who formed a partnership under the name and style of F. Bros., all the right, title, interest and claim of said J. K. in and to the goods, chattels, notes, accounts, claims, rights, and credits of every description Ixdonging to the late firm of J. K. & Co. in the drug business in Pittsburg, afore- said, as will appear by bill of sale thereof dated April 'M), 1S.")3, a copy of which is hereto annexed and marked "C." Under said bill of sale, said .T. F. and C. F., composing tlie firm of F. Bros., at once took possession of the business of making and selling 874 All'KNDlX M. H«i«l "Dr. MiI.iiiu'h I.ivrr I'iUh," uii«I «if wiilat«-H, tokciiH, IiiIu'Ih and trHdi-markx, nnd thon-liy Imtiiiih' tlu" rxcluHivc owncrH of thi* Ham<> «nd of tlif ri;:lit to niakr and m-ll tUv tmnw with tin- naid lalu'ln, tokcnH, and tradfmarkM tlH'rc*^!, cxo'iit tin- ri^ilit rcwrvt-d \>y tlu- naid Dr. (liarlcH MrLant- as aforrxaid. On or alntut January lltli, 1S.')4, L. \V. Jr., iMvamt* a ]>artn«-r in tho Hiiid Arm of F. liroa. and aftcrwardti itaid Dr. C. McI>ano n>lin(|uiH)i full and cxrlusivf ri;:lit in S4iid ]>illH aiul Miid lalx-lrt and tradt-markH, hy c-ontract dat«*d .lanuary Sth, 1X."»7, a tMjty of wliii-li in hrn-with filfd marked "D." Said firm of F. Hron. j^'n-atly enlar^icd tin- l>u.sin<'MH of makin;^' and M-lIin;; Haid pills tintil th«' year lS."»."i, nincf vliicli time until the y«'ar 1H72, M'hilo putting th«>m up in boxes of the same material, bizc nnd. ^hap«' BM already hereinlK'fore deat-rihed, and placing; a seal with the words "Mcl^ane's Liver Pills" stamped in red wax upon the cover of each 1h>x c»>ntainin^' said pilU as before deseril>e«l, tliey folded around each box a circular containing; remarks ujion the nature and elTeet of haid pills and the dist-ases for which they are reeonimeiuled witli d "E;" and in order to still further and more readily distinguish article of pills manufactured by them as aforesaid, as of their own manufacture, they procured new steel plates and caused to be |)rinted then-from lalx-ls or trademarks forming; an external wrapper, consist- ing of a fine steel en^'ravinj,' with a fac-simile of the si<,'natured of ('. Mcl>ane and said firm of F. Bros. en;:raved thereon, tlie ground wt)rk of said engraved wrapper on the top of the l»ox being composed of fine lines crossing the box diagonally and at riglit angles with each other and the words "Dr. C. McLane's celebrated liver pills, in sick-headache and in all bilious complaints surpassed by none. Price 'i.'i cts." engraved ther«-on, showing the letters and figures in white, the said words "cele- l>rat<"d liver pills" being upon a scroll similar to a doul>le ogee in form, with black background. On said «'ngrav<'d wrapjier «'overing one side of Hjiid boxes, said firm caused to be engraved and )irinted the words: "Prepared only by F. Bros, successors to .J. K. & Co." all in white letters, also a facHimilc of their signature in l)lack, and the words "without whow! signature none can Ije genuine" printed in black letters, and on the • ipposite side of said boxes are printed other words in white letters as follows: "In futiire my genuine liver pills will have a fine steel engraved wrapp«-r, and my name in red wax on each box," with a facsivxHc of the nignature of ('. Mel.ane in black script, a copy of which lal)el is hereto attacheil marked "F." The businesH fif making and selling said pills with said labels, tokens, and trademarks thereon, was carried cm by said firm «if F. Bros. fn»m the 3nth day of April. 18.').3, in their said firm nam<-, and said firm from said lant mentioned date, owned and held among their firm assets the right of making and »4.-lliug said pills and using thereon said tt)k<-ns. FOU.MS OK mi.l.S \NI» ANSWKUS. 875 IiiIhIh, and t iatl^, iiutuilliHlaiiiiiii^,' tin- iliHn;,'in tliat «f Ajiril, 1H.').'J, until tlu- pn-wnt timi', in till' individual ini-mlKTH iif Haid firm which wi-n* a« foUowH: On tlic 11th f up said pills as above described at Pittsburp, Ta., till about tlie 2nd day of November, 1870, wlien the said J. F. died, and by will, a copy of which is herewith filed marked "G" and made part hereof, bequeathed to your orator the goodwill and i)roprietorship of ^McLane's and other medicines, owned and con- trolled by him, wliich included said Liver Pills, and the right to make, put up and sell the same as described last aforesaid, upon certain con- ditions; in elTect that your orator should take cliarge of and carry on said business, and pay oft the pecuniary legacies given in said will, all of which your orator has done, and by his said will, said J. F.i bequeathed to your orator after payments of the legacies of said will, all the residue of his estate, and thereby your orator became, and is now, tlie sole and exclusive owner and proprietor of said pills, and the recipe for making tlie same, and of said tokens, labels and trademarks, and the plates therefor, and has the sole and exclusive right to make and sell said pills and to use said labels, tokens, and trademarks, and as residuary legatee of said J. F., your orator is entitled to recover all damages or profits, that accrued to liim in his lifetime, or to said firm of F. Bros. And vour orator has, since the death of said J. F., continued, and still continues the business of making and selling said pills and using thereon the said label and trademark under the said name of F. Bros., as hereinbefore described, and your orator is now using said label as shown by Exhibit "F," with tluse exceptions only that within the last few months, he has used and now uses as a ground work on his labels shaded curved lines cutting and crossing each other in such a way as to produce the eifect oi alternate light and shade crossing the top of 87G An*KM>!x n. tlu- »K>x ilinKMHinlly. in ]>hu>- <>f strai^lit linoft crosRing rnch other iliH^foniilly a» liininHlHivo di-ivrilKHl, unci In* now omits on liiH lnW-lii MH now um-«l I'V him the wohIh ••Siuof(«Horn of .1. K. A I o." iind hua aluo »uht)titut«Hl -24" in plaw «»f "rtO" an tin* numlM-r of \ViK>a Htnvt, as will apixar in Kxhihit "IT* h.nt«i annexi-d, and tliat lioth miid lirm of F. BroH. until thi* d«-uth of .1. F., and fn>m that timo, your uratttr doinj; busincsH in aaid firm nam»> aa afor.wiid, liavo, aincc the paHsaj^'e of the Act of Confireiw n-«iuirinf: tlie name, |)hiied aero9« the bottom and ends of each U*x of huid pillH when put up for wih-, and over the foldu of the external wrapper, tlieir iiroprietary United Staten Revenue Htamp. And your orator wiya tluit hein;; the sole and exelusiv.' owner and proprietor of naid pilln and of tlie recipe for makinj^ tlie name and of said tokens, lalnls and trademarks, and the plates therefor as afore- said, and having' the sole and exclusive rifjht to make and sell said pills pre|)anHl and put up as aforesaid, with said tokens, lalnds and tradcmnrks tliereon. your t)rator hoped he niij,'lit he permitted to ex- clusivfly manufacture and sell the same as put uj), and to exclusively use, for the purpose of indicating,' the ori;;in of said pills, said tokens, lalwls and trademarks, hut tiie defendant, with the intent to injure and defraud your orator in the i)remises. and to reap tin- advantajies, lK>neflt8 and profits of the credit and reputation of said pills, ii now enfiajri-il, and has lufn enfjajjed for some time, to-wit — a period un- known to your orator, but believed by him to be several years, making and vindin;:, and causinj,' to be vended by others, a spurious, counter- feit and inferior article of i)ills, i)repared in imitation of and calculated and intended to be 8t)ld as the f,'enuine "Ur. C. McLane Liver Tills," of vour orator's own numufacture, and havinji theretm a false, forged and counterfeit token-lal)el or trademark, made in imitation of and clowly res«'mblin<; that of your orator, so as to enalde tlie defendant to reap the benefits ami jjrolits of the credit and reputation of the trenuine pills made and sold by your orator, and his predecessors in ownersliip, as aforesaid at great expense, and wlini thus prepared, the defendant has he sold, said spurious and counterfeit pills as tlie genuine article of your orator's own manufacture, intending to deceive and thereby actually deceiving the public and customers of your orator, and supplanting your orator's trade and injuring him to a large amount, but which your orator is ifti- able to state or fix without a statement or account of the amount of hales made as aforesaid by sjiid defendant. And the di-fendant. for the i)urpose of more completely and elTec- tually di-eeiving the puldic, and persons wishing to l)uy the genuine pills of your orator's own manufacture, jtuts up liis said false, counter- feit and spurious pills in boxes of the same material, si/e and shape as thow uwhI by your orator as aforesaid, and places iipon the cover of each Ikjx a sial in red wax «)f the same style, size, and a|)piarane«' as the red wal uwd by your orator as aforesaid, and wh'ch is specially used and referred to by vour orator in liis circulars and advi-rtisemcnts, FORMS OF UII.LS ANli AN.sWKKS. 877 nny liim to iiidicali- t<> llie |Mililie nml hiH eiiMtomiTH, the jieimine artiele of pillH, made and Hold \>y yoiir orator an afore- Haid, and wliile eiideavoriii;,' eoniidetidy to deceive tlie piililic and thow! Beekin^; tlie j;enuini! pilln of yoiir orator, l>y the uw of tlie red wul mi placed upon the cover of the hoxeH lined hy the defendant, an aforemiid, he Beekrt to nhiidd himscdf from the inevitable con8e hy him, :i circular printed in the English, CJerman, French, Span- ish and .-l. token or tradrmnrk. in imitntioii ..f ..r il<»mly r.'K.'ml»lin>; t»i«« tok.n lal..l nrul trHclt'inark tli.n aiul fur iiianv yiarH tluTi'tofori' .xcluHiv.ly urt.a niid c.wmtl by .1. K. A Co. afon-HHul, Jhiuk tlio lalu-l of a lijilit n ox of pillH w) put up and mdd liy him In- placed a wal Htanijird in r.d wax in imitation of that U(M-d hy said K. 4 Co. as afonsaid, and tlim wrapp.-d .adi box of pillH in ono of the countorfoit lalnda last alH>ve df(HTil).'d, which lal.fl con- sinttti of an rn^'ravid wrapp«T jirintod with ink of a light red color, noarly n's«inlding in nhadi- and pncral appearance that used by said K. 4 Co. and with the words "Dr. McLean's Universal Pills for cure of liver e«>mplaint, headache, bilious dis»-as4'S, etc." printed on the por- tion covering? the top of each box, in white letters shaded by a red line, and below the above, the words "Price (sec dincth.ns inside) 2.". cts." On the side of the box were printed on tlie wraj.per the words "Dr. Mclx-an's I'niversal pillen zur heilunj,' von Leber Krankheiten Kopf- weh bilosen Krankheiten V. L. W." appearin^r in white letters shaded by red lines, as in the genuine label, and witli the words "Vorschrift auf der innern seite" j.rinted in red letters underneath, while on tlie portion of said wrajipir covering the opposite side of said box are printed the words "Prepared by .1. H. McLean, X. K. Corner :Jrd and Pine streets. St. Louis, Mo." A copy of said label is hereto attached marked "L." And your orator believes and charges that tlie defendant procured and uw'd the said last descril.ed label solely ft.r tlie purpose of deceiv- ing the public and those wishing to buy the genuine pills made and sold as aforesaid by said J. K. & Co., but he says that defendant's fraud- uhnt designs were to some extent frustrated and tlie elTects of his wrongful acts partially av.rt.-d from tlie rightful i.roprietor of said lalK-1 and trademark by the circumstances of tiie said firm of F. Bros, in the year lH'tC), having changed the label and wrapper used by them and by said J. K. &. Co. j.rior to that time, and adopted the label latilv uwd by your orator as aforesaid, but your orator says that after tlie a«b.ptiove described, defendant conceived the design of changing th.- c«dor of his laWl, and adopting in place of tlie re.l lalM-l thereUifore used by him. another dark label in imitatit.n of the Inliel or trademark of your orator, which was done, as your orator be- lieves and charges for the purpose of wrongfully div.rting the trade of your orator to himwlf and .nabling him to sell his goods aa and FOItMS OK lUr-t.S AND ANSWKKS. 879 for tlic nciotU mnnufiirtiind and Mold liy your i.rator, and not for tlic piirpoHc of prcvrntin;,' countcrfi-itin),' uh dcf<-ndunt falHcly puldiHln-M on IiIh own fraudulent lalxl. Your orator ntati-H furtli.r lliat haid d.f.Mdant wan in-vcr Hutliori/.<'d Ity him to make, jmt up, or hcU Huid pillH uh of your orutor'n own manufaclur.', or to use or muko Huid titkcns, lalxln or tradi-rnarkH in imitation of or rcBcmhlance to thoHC of yojir orator hh wiid dcft-ndant is cliar;,'fd to iiuvt- done above, nor to make or H
    (lur non i.UK diiH-a>«»«», Rdopt«-v said S. A. U. in his said liusint'sa and on his said mi-dicini' hrn-in aforesaid, as r«-;>ist.r«d in i\u- I'nitid States Patent onice Maroli 2ose of illuB- tratin;: and eX|dainin;; tin- said trademark. s») used and adopted liy the S4»id S. A. H. as aforesaid. Vonr orator further represents to your honors that after tlie said S. A. U. had used and a»h)i)ted said device as and f«)r his trademark in liis business the "Dr. S. A. Richmond Medical Company" was in- corporattHl and orj-anized undy virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri and succeeded the said S. A. U. in the husincsa of manufactur- in;; and s«'llin;r the medicine aforesaid on which said trademark was usi'd, and accpiin-d all the riuht. title, and interest in and to said trade- mark theretofore owned nnd enjoyed hy said S. A. Tl. Your orator further r»'|>n"sents to your honors that tin- incorpora- tion of the "Dr. S. A. Richmond Medical Company" about the latter part of the year 18S.3 or early jmrt of the year 1884, the particular dati- of which your orator is unalile to state, said "Dr. S. A. Richmond Medical Company" adopted nnd used, in connection with the trade- mark aforesaid, an enfjraved juirtrait of Dr. S. A. Kiclimond, placed on the «nitside wrajiper in which the bottle of medicine was encased, formin" the front side of bottle, and on circulars nnd otiier mediums of advertising.', and was also blown in the bottles nnd photoj.'raphed on paper and pasted on opposite side of the bottles; the words "new style" jirinti-d in small capitals on the upper right hand corner of said out- side wrajjper, and the word "adopted" and figures "1SS4" printed in same manner in upper left hand corner of said wrapper; nlso the portrait of said Dr. S. A. R.. surrounded l>y four globes, was i>lact'd on outside wrapjier on the back of said liottles. A copy or specimen of said jiortrait nnd glol)e8 as used, as aforesaid, by said "Dr. S. A. Richmond Medical Comi)any" is hereto attaelied and marked Exhibit "B" for the purpose of illustration and explanation. Your orator further represents to your honors that on or about the i:Uh day of May. 1884. the said "Dr. S. A. Richmond Medical Company" ma«le an assignment for the Ix-nefit of its creditors under and pursuant U> tlie laws of tlie State of Missouri. Tliat said assignment was duly made, prosj-euted and wound up according to law. A copy of the reso- lution of said company authorizing the president thertof to make such assignment is hereto attached, marked Exhibit "C," and made a part of this bill. KOHMS OK Hll.LS AND ANSWKKS. 881 Tlmt 1)V order nf tin- court in hhhI proc»'«'r <(im poll rid iii>: niiid nicdii-iiw, tin- jjoodwill «>f tin' liUHincBB, mid till' trademark and nil other deHi^iiH UHod hy th«; Haid "Dr. S. A. Kieliiiioiid Medical I (>iii|iaiiy," iiieludiii^' the jxtrtrait, and portrait con- nected with f;lol)eH u«ed hy wiid eouipaiiy uh Inrein aforeiaid for the purpose of advertisinf; said medicine, wan duly and lawfully Hold by the assifnit'C of said "Dr. Richmond Medical C'omiiany," and that J. A. R. bocame the purchaHcr thereof; that afterwardn your orator, "The Dr. S. A. l{ichmond Nervine Company," was incorporated and organized under and hy virtui- of llie laws of the 8lalj of Missouri, and by [lurchaso of and transfer liy said J. A. R., succeeded tlie "Dr. S. A. PW;hmond Medical Ctmipany," in tin- manufacture and sale of said medicine, the "Samaritan nervine," and ac(piired all the rifjht, title and interest in and to said personal property, formula, trademark and all devices used in connection therewith, as aforesaid, theretofore owned, adopted, used and enjoyed by the said "Dr. S. A. Richmond Medical Company," and that thereliy your orator became and now is the sole, exclusive and rightful owner of said jjropcrty, foruuila, trademark, and devices adopted and used in connection therewith, and is entitled to the sole and exclusive use and enjoyment of the same, and is now and for several years last past has been en<,'aged in makindicino umltr snul triuhmurk-*, «(c,, and fliat your nratur lias af«iuirfro|uTtv iiitirrst in ami tn saiil trademarks that niakiK thrir ••xclusivf t-njovHu-nt in your orator of ;;r«'at ju-cuniury vuluo und import- anrc. Your orator, in furtlu-r rom)>laint. fiirtliiT repn'tw-ntw to your honors that notwitliHtandinj; tlw h»nj; »ih«' and cnjoynunt i>f wiid tradt inarkrt und tho portrait, rto., uwd in connection tliorcwitli aw aforcnaid, wliich your orator ohar;:«'8 and nvrrn wan uwd hy tlic "Dr. S. A. Hichmond Medical Company" and liy tlic aH«ij:nc<' tlicnnif was Hohl to your orator and uwd hy it itMitinuouHly from thitn damaged to an amount exceeding five tluiusand dollars, exclusive of costs. Your orator fnrtlier represents to your lionors that said S. A. K., tlto defendant herein, well knowing the exclusive right of your orator to FORMS OK IJlIJiS AND ANSWERS, 883 maki' and vt-iul hii'hI mcdiriiic, "Snmiiritan nervine," ftnenefits, and advan- taj^es wiiicli would acenie to it from the exclusive use of said trade- marks within the district aforesaid, has wron;,'fully and fraudulently applied to the Patent Olliee of the United States of Ameriea for regis- tration of said portrait of said Ur. S. A. li. adopted and lonj^ used by your orator aa its trademark aforesaid as and for his trademark; all of which will fully a])pear by copy of his statement and the declaration filed in the Patent Ollice of the United States of America, which is liereto attached, marked Exhibit "F", and made part hereof; that said S. A. R. has no interest in the formula for comi)oiindin(^ the medicine in suit nor Im he entitled to adopt or use said jjortrait as his tradi-mark. Your orator furtlier represents to your honors that said S. A. K. is wholly insolvent and worthless, and that he would be unable to pay any damajjcs that your orator might sustain by means of the premises aforesaid; that your said orator has no speedy or adequate remedy at law in the premises, and it can only be protected in its several rif,'lit8 Iierein by the equitable interposition of this court. Your orator prays that the defendant may be required to make a disclosure of all such sales and profits, and that they may be required to account with and i)ay over to your orator all the dama},'es it may have sustained and profits which he has received from such unlawful use of said trademark, and that tliey may be enjoined provisionally and preliminarily pending a hearing herein. \Vherefore, the premises considered, your orator prays that upon a final hearing tlie defendant be enjoined and restrained by decrei- from in any manner making and selling said medicine, "Samaritan nervine," under the name of "Samaritan nervine" or under any other name what- ever, and from in any manner using said trademarks or devices enumer- ated therewith, or either of them or any trademark or marks so nearly resembling them as will be calculated to deceive on any of their prepara- tions and from infringing upon your orator'c exclusive right to use the same; that the defendant be enjoined and restrained from the further prosecution of the registration of said portrait as his said trademark before the Patent Ollice of the United States, and that he be recpiired to account with and pay over to your orator all damages sustained by it and profits by him received from such unlawful use of said trademarks. That your orator may have such other and further relief in the premises as equity and good conscience will allow and as to this court shall seem meet; and may it please your honors to grant unto your orator a writ of subpoena of the United States of America under the seal of this honorable court, directed to the defendant, S. A. R., 884 APPENinx H. omimnndiii); him to nppi-nr in lhii« lionorftl.lo court, tlun and tli.r.- to aniiA^-or all ami Bin^nilnr the promim'H and to ntaml to ami pi-rform and abide Hiu-i« furtlu-r ordiTi*. dinvtiouH. and dcon-c hm may he made against him; and your orator will ever pray, 11. * IV and H. \ IJ. i v., Holicitora for Complainant. Bn.T. OF ^o^^^I.AT^•T. (Saxlehner v. Kisner \ M.nd.lsun Co.. 170 I^ S. 10). To the rionorahlr the .ludgca of the Circuit Curl of thr Vnitrd Statct for thr South) rn IHstrict of \ctc York: Kmilie Saxlehner hrin;:« this hill of eonii>laint a;,'ainst Eisner & Men- delson Company, and thereupon your orator eompiains and says, upon infornuition and belief: 1. That your orator is the widow of Andreas Saxlehner, deceased, and resides at the City of Hudai)est. in the Kinj;dom of lluii^'ary. and is a sul>ject of the Kin<: of Hun;:ary. 2. That the defendant, the said Eisner c\: .\I(n(hls.>ii Cdnipany. dur- ing the time wlien the aets hereinafter complained of were committed was, and now is, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of West Virginia, having an ofTice for the transaction of its husiness in th«' City of N«'W York, an, tlie proprietor of a certain well situ- ated at Orsod, within the city limits of the city of Buda (otherwise known in the German language as the city of Ofen ) , which city has for al)Out twenty-five years last past heen, and is now, united with the city of Pest, under the name of Budapest, in said Kingdom of Hungarv, the waters . That hy reason of the gn-at I,S AVD ANSWERS. 885 iiamo of wliioli valli-y ami territory contained in it iA Orfiod, nnd thoro- upoii Haid Aiidn-urt Saxlciiiifr applied Haid niiiiif of "lliiiivadi .larioH" to tlu' bottled water of Huid Hpriiif^ Mold Ijy liitn in tin- iiiarkcl. (5. That at or about tiie time wlien Haid AiidnaH Saxlelmer adopted Haid name of "Ilunyadi JanoH" an aforesaid, lie alHo adopted u cliarac- teriHtic and novel Htyle of bottles in wiiicli Haid water was sold by him in the niiirket, tlie same beiiij,' of a strai;,dit nhapc; witli a whort neck to tlif top of which was altaelidl a metal eapsiiic liciiriii" tin- inscription ••llunya
  • n>n;:t'thor with tl»n lu«torionl portrait and tin- nanv of ••Aiuln'RH Saxlrhiu-r," wm- rftaiiu'd on minu' Inlwl in tho nann- manntT HH lM-ft>n'. HH wan alwi tlu- division into tlirc.- lon^'itiidinHl lii-ldn; and thf p-n«-ral i»tyl«' of tin- IwittlcH. art alno tin- jH|»siilf and imprint tlun-on uhovo dfiH-rilKil nniaincd tlif Ham.-. Tliat naid lalxl wan Hulmtantiallv like tli' 1«Ik-I UMtl liy vour orator, tin- wuioHwir of Andnaw Saxhlimr in said liUHintKM. an lun-inaftrr n-fi'm-d to. Tliat mhhx tlifnaftt-r tlu-n- \\a« added to KMid Mui- and n-d lalnd a t*niall, narrow utrip on tin- top tlu-rt'of, in the Kami- Iduf ooh)r. r»>ntiuiiin^ the printed w«)nlH "Soh- exporterH: The Apol- linarirt I'onipany, Limited. Londoi\," whieh strip han l>een ninee retained, the readin;; of the print l>ein),' thereafter ehanp'd to Proprietor: Firm of Andreart Saxh-liner. Hudapest. IIun;.'ary." J). That ever hince the adoption of said red and l>lue ialiel. as iifore- Huid, in or ahoiit the year 1S7«», lar^'e ipiantities of such hitter water thu8 iKitth-d and lalK-hHl were exported l>y the said Andreas Saxleiiner tlirou^'h naid ApoUinaris Company, Limited, to tlie United States of Ameriea. and there sohl to the pulilic, and »&'\d water liecame known in tlie I'nited States of Ameriea under the nam«' of '"Hunyadi water." and iMvann- known iind<-r the name as tlie jtroperty of said Andreas Saxlehner. and was ordered and sold under sueh name, tlie same heinj,' an al)l>revia- tion of the name "Ilunyadi .lanos." That a lar;;e traflie and i.usiness in i-xiHirtinK to the United States, and vendinj; therein said water, was estaldishi'd and continuously carried on and is now carried on liy your orator as successor in husiness of said Andreas Saxlehner. 10. That on Mav 24. ISSit, said Andreas Saxleliiier died, and your orator, his widow, thereupon succeeded him in said l>usineas of l)ottlin;r and exporting; said Hunyadi .lanos water, and l.ecame and is the pm prietor theri'of. U. That since the termiiuition of said contract with suid Apcdlinaris Company, Limited, your orator has continued said husimss of shijtpin;; to the Uniti'd States, and selling therein said Hunyadi .Tanos water, commonly known as Hunyadi water, in liotths and with lalu-ls and capsules thereon suiistantially as hereinltefore last descrii)ed, e.xceptinn that upon said laliels the statement is contained, "Proprietor: Firm of Andreas Saxlelnnr, Hudapest, Hun;,'ary," in place of an indication of the AjKillinarirt Company as exporters. That yo»ir orator is the sole proprietor of the firm of Andreas S-ixlehner. and lawfully (loin^: I.usiness in AuHtriaHnn;.'ary, under said firm name. 12. That on or about the 12th day of November, 188«, said Andreas Saxlehner duly made application to the I'nited Stat«-8 Patint Ollice, according' to the statute of the I'nited States therefore pn>vided, for rejfistration of the name "Hunyadi" as his tnulemark for natural aperient wat4-rs. and suih proceeding's were thereafter had. that on or alu.ut the 5th day of April, 1HH7, u certificate of re;;istration of said trademark "Hunyadi" was duly issued to him l>y said United States I'atent Otlice, dat4y your orator in the United .States is procured directly from tin? well or wells aforesaid, and, therefore, to rely upon the said label and trademark as an assurance and ^'uarantee of the ffenuinenesH, stren^jth and purity of the said water, and your orator allejics that said assurance and ^'uar- antee was and is of ^'rcat value to your orator and to the dealers and consumers of said watcT. And tiiat said water so sold by your orator lias come generally to be known and desijrnated by tlie trade so called, and by purchasers and consumers of the water in tin; United States of America by the first and characteristic word of said trademark, "Hun- yadi," the "Janos*' bein^' comparatively seldom used in common parlance in this country. 14. And your orator further shows unto your honors tliat the de- fendant aI)ove named, wcdl knowinj^ the premises and the ri^rhts existing,' in and secured to your orator as aforesaid, but contriving' to injure your orator and deprive her of the benefits and advanta{,'e8 which miyht and otherwise would accrue unto her from the enjoyment of such rights and to injure and impose upon the public, subsequent to the adoption of the said trademark, label, bottle and capsules by your orator and her pred- ecessor, recently and before the commencement of the suit, as your orator is informed and believes, in tlie city of New York and elsewhere, witliout license or allowance and aj^ainst tlu' will of your orator, in violation of the rij^hts of your orator and infringinj,' tlie said trademark, did unlawfully and wron<,'fully import for sale and sell and offer for sale bitter water not coming from your orator's said wells in bottles of identical shape and size as those used by your orator and with certain capsules thereon stamped with a portrait in imitation of that impressed on your orator's capsules, surrounded by a circular inscription and the initials II. L. and with labels on said l)ottles l)earin<,' tlie name "llunyadi Laszlo," Budai Keseriiviz, and a ])ortrait in the middle field of said label, set in a medallion, all in close and fraudulent simulation of your orator's trademark; and that defendant's said labels also further imitate your orator's labels l)y being divided in three longitudinal fields, covering almost the whole body of the bottle, the color of the middle field being red, and that of the body of the label being blue, and in many other partic- ulars, all contrived to induce the public to take defendant's said water as and in place of your orator's water. And that otiier l)ottles of such water, sold by said defendant, imitate your orator's bottles in sliape, size and color, capsule and label, being marked with the name "Hunyadi Matyas," and bearing a label designed 8SS ArPKNDlX H. ill cloBO and frauduKnt Himiilation of vi.ur orutor'rt Raid lalnl in color, division into thnM« jmn.lrt niul printid inattrr contaimd thonon. inolud- in;r a nu-dallioii portrait in tlir rfntrul pan.l and niu-atcd t>n tlio oapsnlo. ir». And vour orator fiirtluT t«lio\vs tluit tlu' similarity l>ft\vfcn tin- Maid lK)ttK-H. capHultH. lalH-l8 and nanu-s used rt-Hpcrtivily liy your orator Nnd tho dtfi-ndnnt i« ho pn-at that the puldic and tonKumirH and pur fhas4ri« arc Kki-Iy to ho doot-ivt-d tlurHiy, and arc in fact deceived t«> jinp|>oi*«' the water ho Hold hy the said defendant to l.e that m.ld l.y your orator and therehy t(» eauw your t)rator j^reat loss and damage. 1(5. That until the year ISOO yo\ir orat«>r antl her naiil predecessor in huHinesH 0, tho law of Hungary has been changed, and your orator has succeeded in causing all tlwse fraudulent marks and lahels to be suppressed by proper proceedings brought for this purpos*'. including also tiie use of tlie name "Hunyadi Laszlo" and "Ilunyadi Matyas," and the labels upon wliich said names were used by the proprietors of the springs from which said defendant's water came, and that the further use of said names is now a criminal offense in Hungary. That your orator has duly notified said defendant of her rights and «laims in the premises and reS AND ANSWERS. 889 regard and dofinnro of tho ri|,'litn of yniir orator hnvo tho oHoci to uml do cncoura^'i' and iiidiKM- otliiTH to iiitirfcrr with tlu- Haid tradi-murk and lah(d, and to violate and diHrc^'ard your orator'H rif^ditH. And, forasinucii as your orator can have no adc<|uat<- rrator hUouM not liavi- tlic ndicf lien-hy pray«'d and mav. accordin;,' to the hcHt and utmoHt knowledge, rememhrance, infor- mation and belief of its ollicerH, full, true, direct and perfect anHwerrt make to the premises and to all tiie Heveral matters lu-reinlieforc state*! and charged as fully and particularly as if severally and separately inter rogated as to each and every of such matters, and may he com|)elled to account for and pay to your orator tlie profits hy it a(<|uired and tin- damages sufTered hy your orator from the aforeHainorulih> court, i-onimaiulin^', i'nj«)iiiinj; ami rcHtraiiiiii),' tho Miiil lU'fondant, itrt ollicfrx, wrvauts, aj^-i-ntH, attorrnvB and workmen, and oadi and cwry of tlu-in a« i» hcroinlH-fon" and in tluit hrhalf prayed. May it pleasf your honors to grant unto your orator the writ of Huh- jMvna issuinj" out of and undi-r thi- wal of this honorahlo court din-ct»'d to tho sjiid dtf.ndant. Kisnor 4 M.-ndi-lson Company, hy a cortain day and undiT a ct-rtain jM-nalty U> \h' and appear in this lionorahK- court, there and tlien to answer the premises and to stand to and abide such order and decree as may In- made ajiainst it. And your orator will ever pray, etc ]?. & K.. C'jrtipUiiitatit's Holicitora. BILL OF roMPLAINT. (Hennessy v. Herrmann. SO Fed. Rep. OCfl.) In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Nortliern Judicial District of the State of California. jAcgiES Richard Maukick Hennessy, Jacques Fbancis Henry Hexnkssy, James Richard Chabi.es He.nnes.sy Abuand Castillon and Emmanuei ^Iti Kipiity. Castaiu.ve, against J. H. and C. S. To the nonnrahic Juilgm of thr Circuit Court of the Tm/rJ l^tatrs for the yorthcm Judicial Dintrict of California: First. J. R. M. n., J. F. IT. IT., J. R. C. IT., A. C. and K. 0.. all of Cojrnac in France, and citizens of the Republic of France, brinjj this their bin of comj.laint ajrainst J. H. and C S., of the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, residents of the Northern Judicial District aforesaid, and citizens thereof, and thereupon your orators complain and say : Second. Complainants state that at all the times hereinafter men- tioned they were copartners under the firm name and style of James Hen- nessy and Company. That the complaiiumts are, and for a Ion;; time previous to the commission of the grievances hereinafter mentioned have Ix-en, exporters, J)ottlers and vendors of a cordial or !i(|Uor known as Ilennessy brandy, which the complainants and their jtredecessors in the partnerHhii. business have for upwards of thirty years last past produced, iHittled and sold. Third. That said brandy when bottled by these complainants is put I,,, in peculiar tall. . .\M> AN.^\M,U.s. 891 bonrinp (a) n rcctnn^Milar Inlxl licariii;; tlic iiiHcription, "Jafl. IIonrn-Hfly A Co., L'(i;,'Muc," ill liitUl ltttted by tlie coniplaiiiantH for that purpose tlie year A. I). 1H70, and all eiuased in wpiare wooden Ixixch holding twelve bottles each. Fourtli. That eonipiainant.s' trademarks have been duly registered under tlie proviHioiis of the statutt' y kIxuiIiI so hv iiwd. ami tlint in fai't tlu'V liH\«' Ui'ii h«> iiHi'il, ill friiiul of your onitorn' ri;.'litH. Sixtli. That hucIi imitation hilu'la arc cah'uhitcd to deceive Iht* pur- chatxTD and ci>niiuincr8 of itaid lirundy, nnd arc c-ah-uhitcd to nium* tho piihlio and the huyorn and conHtmuTH tht-n-tif to h«dirvr that tho lirundy ki'pt and oITitihI for wih- and Hold liy dcfi-ndantH* ciiHtomiTH ia the brandy ••x|Mirt«-d, liottli'd and mdd l>y thi- romplainantn. S-\«-ntli. Tliat HUfli imitation ft* rah-uhUfd to chrcivi- and iniHh'ad the purchas«rh and f«>nHum«Ts of tlie coniphiinants' hrandy, and lias aetually dttH-ivj-fl and niiHli'd and ntill docs niishad many of tlu-m to huy the hrandv or liijnor w)Ul l>y the defemhints" i-ustonicrH in the belief that it is the brandy exported and bottled by the eomplainants, to the great loss, injury and damajje of tlie (>om]>lainants. Tliat the artiele ho put up ami wdd by the defendants' eiistoniers is of greatly inferior quality to that of the e«>ni|ilainants. and deleterious to the health of the eonsumer, and the general estt-em antl rej>utation of the lirandy exported i»y the eomplainantH has U'en and is now l>eing injured and damaged tliereby. Kighth. Korasmueh as your orators can have no adequate relief except in this court, and to tin- end, therefore, that the defendants may, if they can, sIjow why your orators should not have the relief hereby pray«'d, and may make a full disclosure and discovery of ail the matters aforesaid, and according to the best and utmost of their knowledge, remembrance, informa- tion and belief, full, true, direct and perfect answer make to tiie mattt-rs hereinbi^ore stated and cliarged, but not under oath, an answer under oath In-ing exj)res8ly waived. And that the defendants may be decn-ed to account for and i>ay over adi-quate danuiges arising from their aforesaid acts in violation of your orators' rights, your orators pray that your honors may grant a writ of injunction issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, perj>etually enjoining and n-straining the said defendants, tlwir clerks, attorneys, agents and servants from keejiing, olTering for sale, or selling any brandy not Ix-ing the i)randy exported and bottled liy yovir t>rators, put up in bottles of th«' general form, shape and color of complainants' lK>ttles, and wrapped with lalnds of the form, device and in tlie manner complained of, or in any other form and device which shall Iw a color- able imitation of complainants' brandy, or from applying to any sudh brandy the name "Ilennessy Brandy," or from using upon or in connection witli wiid l>raMily or any cojinterfeit of your orators' labels or cases the name "HennesBy," or any combination of B\ich name or name of like sound, and that the defendants deliver up to your orators all bottli-s having thertHiU Kaid false lal)el, and also all such faUe labels in their |K)ss«'ssion or under their control, to the end and puri>ose that the same may be destroyed. And that your lionors upon the rendering of th.' decrei" above jirayed mav aswHH, or cause to be assessed, the damages your orators have sustained by reason of the premises. FOUMS OF HII.LS AND ANSWKKH. HO^l Mav it plciisf vdur linnnrs to prnnt untf- your orntorH not only a writ of iiijiirutioii confonnatilc to tlic prayer of tliin hill, lait alno a writ of Hiil>|)(i'iia of the Tnitfil StatcH of Ann-rica. din-ctcil to tin- Haiil J. H. and ('. S., coninuuidin',' tlit'in on a day certain to appear and anHWcr unto tlii8 lull of foniplaint, and to abide and perform Hueh onler and decrw; in tlic premises as to the court shall seem pn.per and re<|uir.(i )iy th« priiK-ipleH of eipiitv and good conscience. .1. L. H., A. I.. I'. ani nm imm^t m snu\ nllo^'Oil luifiinoHS nml tiif onrryin" on and owiKrsliip nnd proprit-torHliip tlu-rcdf, atul ciin not admit (ir deny tli<> nlliTjationH of said liill nlativo tlu-rcto. anill of oimiphiint as to tin- InisincHH of tli<> partncrsliip of C. Urnkt-rt & S<»n nnd of complainant, or of tht- hoots and shews maniifacturcil and sold by th«-m or fitiicr «)f tlx-m, or of the quality, (pianlity and price of such lKK)ts and sho<'s. or tin- mark or otiicr dcBi;^tuition tlicrcof or thereon, and can not admit or deny tlie allepitions of said hill rehitive tht-reto, and insist that lomplainant nutke proof tiiereof. Defendants say tliat tlu-y have no knowh'd;,'e or inforniation otlier than from said hill of complaint as to the placin;; as a trademark upon said IkhUs and sIkh'S. and to indicate the ownership and ori^'in thereof, the words "C". Benkert & Son," and to the knowing of said lK>ot8 and shucA by the name of "('. Hcnkert & Son," and can not admit or deny the allejrations of said hill relative thereto, and insist that complainant make j)roof thereof. Defendants say that (hey have no knowled;;e or information other tlian from said l)ill of complaint as to the name of "t". Benkert & Son" hein;^ a trademark, or the ownership of said name, or the ri;,'l>t to use and place the same upon hoots or slux's. and can not admit or deny ii\^^ nllegations of said hill n-Iative tliereto, and insist tliat i-onijilainant make proof thereof. These defendants and each of tliem deny that tliey liave for more tlian five years last past Ix-en jiartners in trade as set forth in said hill of complaint, «'xcept as follows: for the four years previous to the montli of March, 1SS4, they, with one Bromher;rer, wen- partners in trade under the firm name of Rosenthal. Feder & ( o., and in said month said Brom- lK'r<.'er retired from the co-partnership formed l>y them: since said month these defendants have been partners in trade as set forth in said hill of complaint. Tliew defendants and each of them deny that within five years or at any time or times whatsoever thiy or either of them had maiuifactured or sold, or an- now manufacturing or wiling, large or any (juantities of iHJots and shoes or hoots or shoes, or each or eitln-r, on any of which they have placed in plain or conspicuous letters, or at all, the name of "C. F. Benkert i Son," in imitation of tlie name of '•('. Benkert Jt Son," as alleged in said hill of complaint, or at all. Defendants and each of tln-m deny that they or either of them have stamped in soli-leather or huttons or any other ]iart of said hoots and shoes, or any iKiots or shoes wliatsoev«'r, in plain consjiicuous letters or other- wise, the name or words "('. V. Benkert & Son, Phila." Dt'fendants deny that they have manufactured or are still manufac- turing said hoots and shoi-s or any hoots or shoes marked with the name of "('. F. Benkert & Son" in San Francisco, Hawaiian Islands, other domestic or fon-ign markets or (dsewhere. and admit and show to thie court that they have sold in San Francisco and <'lsewliere a small FORMS OF BILLS AND ANSWKKH. 895 qimntity of l)o<)trt niul hIioch marked '•('. F. Uciikcrt & Son," c-ompriHiny not mori" tluin two hundred und fifty do/.i-n puirH tht-n-of; and fiirtht-r Htutf and wliow tliat tlu- boots and elioi-a ho Hold wt-re of an entirely dUr»n-iit cUiHs, style, niitun- and f,'radc from tin- ImotH and nhoeH alluf^ed in Huid 1)111 of t-onijilaint to lie maMufactund \>y tlu- complainant and an Hucli were rocogni/.cd l>y and sold to th.' tuHtomtTM and jiatroiirt of tin-Hi; defendants. Defendants nay they have no knowled^'e or information other than from said hill of complaint as to tlie relative quality, cost of manufacture and prices of sale of said hoots and shoes and the hoots and slioes madi- by the complainant, and can not admit or deny the allegations of said bill rtdtttive thereto, and insist that complainant make proof thereof. Defendants and each of tliem deny that they have had manufactured for them as set forth in said l)ill of complaint large or any qiuintitie«» of boots or shoes or any boots or shoes whatever on which was printed tlie name "C. F. Benkert & Son" or stamped "C. F. Benkert & Son. Phila.," as set forth in said bill of complaint, excepting not more than thn-e hundred and twenty-one dozens thereof, and the defendants and each of them deny that they have sold or are still selling l)oots and shoes with said words printed or stamped thereon in San Francisco or elsewhere, excepting that they have lieretofore sold not more than the two hundred and fifty do7A"ns thereof aforesaid. The defendants and »'ach of them deny that they have j)Iaced or caused to be placed on said boots or shoes alleged to have been sold by them or upon any other boots or shoes whatsoever said words, to wit, "C. F. Benkert & Son," for the purpose of deceiving tlie jiublic or jiurchasers tlmn llv.« huntlnd ( :.()()» «lollnrn. Th.> a«f.iHluntH iinii nuh of tlum «l«ny tliiit l>y rniKoii of tin- hhuI iill.^,'*^* infrinp-m.-nt. tr lHimint has sulTrnd Ions or ilani«j;<' to a v.rv lar^T or otIuT nniount or any Iohh or tlaina^-c \v|int»4wvrr. Without tluH tliat tlun- i« any otln r mattir. tanw or lliiny in tlic ^aiil liill of complaint rontaintnl material t>r nrcrsaary for iIh-m- «U>frndants or oitluT of tlu-m to makf anHWi-r unto and not licrrin and ln'n'l>y wtdl and siiflirifntly answorod. oonfr^M-d, travfrsi'd and nvoiilcd is tnn> to tlu* kno\vl«'dj.M> i>r Udiff of tln>«4' dofriidants; all of wliii-li niatt«-rs and tliin^'K th«'^«' di'f.iulants arc nady and willing to avi-r. maintain and prove an this hontiraldc court shall din-ot, ami liumldy pray to lu- hence dismiswd ^^»th tlieir reasonalde costs and charges in this I.ehalf most wrongfully 8ust«inereparation and sale of a certain medicine at the city of Baltimore and tln-refore call for strict proof of same although defendants are informed and ludieve that complainant has lu-en »-ngaged in the ])re|iaration and sale «»f a medicine, hut these defendants on inform- ation and iM-lief deny that said mei!l of foni|)laiiit admit on information and Indiof that tin- dt-sifiiiation "HrownH Iron UitttrH" had come to l)t' anHK-iatod witii complainant'H medicine or product, hut whether or not to the exclusion of all others, defendants can not Hay as matter of law, hut defendants say as matter of fact, no otlier Hrown Iron Hitlera are known to these defendants, and that tliose di-sirin;,' efmiplainant'fl medicine are in the hai)it of nsiiij; the desi^'nation '•Brown's Iron Hitters" with the understandin;: that it means comjilainant's medicine alone since th»'re are no other Brown's Iron IJittera made up or sold to the trade as defendants are informed and helieve; and that whenever the said desig- nation, Hrown's Iron Bitters are used, it means a medicine prepared and put up by complainant at tiic city of Baltimore, in tlie state of Maryland. These defendants furtlier answcrin;,' said Iiill of complaint say they Iiave no information sudicicnt to form a lulief as to whether or not said complainant has spent lar-ie sums of money in advert isinf,' amountinj,' to liundreds of thousands annually, althou},di defendants helieve com- plainant has advertised extensively. Defendants admit that complain- ant's output has been of {jreat magnitude, amountiu}^ to many thousands of bottles annually, but as to whether or not said bottler have all borne a label consisting in jtart of the words "Brown's Iron Bitters," these defendants do not know, but iielieve and suppose it is so. These defendants admit on information and belief that the said desij;- nation "Brown's Iron Bitters" lias come to be identified with said com- plainant's p-oduct, but not to the exclusion of all others as matter of legal rijiht, although as before stated, these defendants know of no other "Brown's Iron Bitters*' in the trade. Defendants do not know whether or not said designation is known and is now used in all parts of the United States by ccmsumers generally wiien they desire to obtain the said prep- aration of complainant, although these defendants know of no otiier jirep- aration of the same designation. These defendants further answering said bill of complaint say they have no information sullicieiit to form a belief as to whether or not said designation has ever been employed in connection with any other prep- aration or remedy, and therefore calls for strict proof of the same; but these defendants deny that the said designation is to all intents and purposes, or to any intent or purpose complainant's tradename or trade- mark, or that said complainant now has or has ever had the exclusive right to the use of said designation as a tradename or trademark for a medicinal prejiaration or otherwise, or that no one except complainant has had. or now has any right to use said designation as a tradename or trademark for a medicinal j)reparation or otherwise; and these defend- ants further answering deny that they have done anything which is fraud- ulent or which will be restrained bv this Honorable Court. 898 APPENDIX n. Those dcfondftntH furth.r uiiKW.Tinjj enid l.ill <>f (•.•mi>l»int a.lmif that thfv wiTO t-nnHjii'd in liUHiiu-ns an wholowiU- tlru^'jiibtH at tin* rity of .St. Luiuii, in thi- Ht«l«> «>f .MiK»«».uii. luit ; Nii ronim»nc<-inrnt t>f this nuit and as wrll sine, tiit-y hml and ha\<' cold nM'difiiH' put up in lM)tths to wliicli* havi- U-.n attachi-d and Hppliid laU'lH oontuininn tin- wordn -'Urown'H Iron Tonic." hut tluw- dtfiiid- ant(« ixplicitly Half .d itrt nnditinc or oUu'rwiw. or that Huch khIis wrra fraudul.ntly nnul.-. <.r that tin- hottl.-s or thi- lalndH thi-rt'on oontainiuK tlu- wordrt •llrowns Iron Ttniic." wire intondod hy tluMc d«'ft'ndantH or anv of th.-ni to indinitc that tin- m.-dicinr contained in said hotth's was pn-par.d and put uj) hy complainant; and these defendantrt deny that they ever have frautluhntly olTend or cauwd to he olTered or sold or that they Htill frauduhntly olfer «ir cause to he offered or sohl in larj;e or an? quantities the said medicine so as afon-said lahelled "Bn>\virrt Iron Tonic." althou^'h thew defendants admit that tlu-y have, as of rijiht they mi^ht, offered and sold and still offer for sale said "iJn.wn's Iron Tonic;" as they have hou;.'ht and sold complainant's said m-dicine. hut without h)sa or injury to said complainant. Thew defendants further answerin;: saif these defendants, or any of them, or throu(;h any use hy tlum of said desij,'nation of "Brown's Iron Tonic" at any time sold as or for complainant's "Brown's Iron Bitters" or mistaken therefor in any instance, or tliat said complainant has lost anythin;j or U'cn inj»iri'd therehy. Thest- defendants further answerin;; said hill of com|>laint. deny that it was their jmrpose to ollVr or sell said "Brown's Iron Tonic" upon any reputation estahlislu-d hy complainant or as or for complainant's said alle;.'ed celehrated 'Brown's Iron Bitters"; and jlefendants deny that any of their acts in the premises have heen or are contrary to «' tlie usi- of the entire (lesipnation "Brown's Iron Bitters" and as prouml of this idaim and as further unawcr to said hill of complaint, these defendants aver FOI{MS OF nil. I.- \Mi \N^\M.l(>. ^■'''' oil iiifornifttion nnd lii-lirf, niul clinr^c tin- truth to lip Hint in m Uiiir tin- MuiniiHT of IKSl, iitic K. L. It. in connrc-tinn with oih- ( '. .1. I,, coniini-nccd putting up imHc<|ui'ntly to thin (hitc, an thcw d'-fi-ndantn on information and hrlii'f, avt-r, Kaid H. sold out liiw intn)U)>lit, and so Ity its Huid Ictti-r and itrt lon^ j»il«lit not in •tpiity and pmkI ocuiwimci', if for no othiT n-aHon, to !>«• ;;rant«d in a »Miurt of ciiuity any relief in till' pnniif«<'i*. Them- defendants furtlur answering,' said liill of i-..nipl:iint. ileny that tlft- (Vtniplainant lias sulTerenthiil, fxifutrix of thi* last will and ti-»tam»'nt of Morris Iturtt-ntlial. d«v«-awd, the prolitu, f^ainH ami a;liton, Ks*]., the standing; master in chancery of tliis court, rcBidinjj in the city and county of San Francisco, northern district, and state of California, to ascertain and take, and state, and report to this ctnirt, an account of the numher of pairs of hoots and shoes manufactured and sold or manufactured or sold hy the orij:inal defendants, Samuel Feder anid;:eil and decreed, tliat the complainant on such accwnthal. reMtrainin;: and perpetually eiijoinin",' tlu-m and each of them, and their anlaintilT>. ar<- .iitith-tl to tlu' rxoluHivi- uw «»f tlir tiTin "Htiyal." ac tli.ir traf tin- wortl •Uoyal' on hiladH nfllxi'd to hakin^ powder, mudi- l>v till" dt-ft-ndants. or printtd or \vntt<-n «»n hoxoH. lulads or othorwiec howwH-vrr. in ronntntion witli hakin;.' powd.r mad.- l.y lli.-in. was in vion any such preparation; or from making; r)r usin^.' any trademark, laliel or wrapper in imitation of those now in uw by plaintifF." (Colton V. Thomas, 2 Brewst. 308.) Injunction against defendant "restraining the further use of the cards and signs complained against in the bill; and also to restrain tlie emplovment by him <»f any device by which the patients nnd patrons of the plaintiff, without the exerciw- of excessivi- care, will be induce,'ents and wrvants, do FOKMS OK IN'.irSf rioN'. ItO.'t alisdliitrly nnd |)cr|M(iiiillv ili'siht ami nirain finm iiil'riii>;iii;,' or iiHiti;.' tlic Hiiid tradfinark of tin- {tlaiiitiir, and from riiakiii;^ or wlliii;,' [xiin with Haid imnicralrt "M)'.i' iinpn-Hwd on the l>(»xrH or i>uloye«l under or in connection witii him he perpetually enjoined and restrained from dinposini^ of, selling or cauuing to bo dispoHed of or Hold, any watchea hearing the false, Himulated and spurious stamp or mark. Mules .Jurgensen, Co]H'niiagen.' " 2. "That tlie (li-feiidant do produce before Nathaniel .larvis, Krt<|., appointed herein referee for sudi ])urp()fle, tlie said watches, whicii at the time of the commencement of this suit were in defendanfn poRsession, and had upon them the said false, simulated and spurious trademark, to he erased or obliterated therefrom, by or under the «lirection of the said referci-. at the cost and exiK-nse of the said de- fondant." (CofTeen v. Rrunton, 4 McLean, 'yU); Cox, 82.) "To enjoin the defendant from using the label or directions accom- panying the liniment he sells as aforesaid, or other labels or directions, or any advertisements or handbills respecting the same words which are us

    K ATPKALS. Al FIltMINC DKCUKK OK IX.U'NCTION. (I'V.l.r V. H.iik.Tt, 7(i K,(l. K.|i. iW.i.) I'MTKlt STATKS »)K AxtKllllA- SS. 77i<- rnsiilrut nf thr luilrd Stotrs »f Atnrricn. T<> tli> Ifiniiirahlc thT .hidrirs of thr Cirniit f'oi/rf .)/ Ili< Ivilr,! SInl.s fnr thr \i,rthrrn District nf Calif oniia, (Irrctiug: WiiKREAS, Intoly in tli«' Circuit Court of (lu- rnilr.l States for tin* northern district of Californiii. lu-forc vou, or hoiin' of voii, in a cause lu-tweeii William .1. llenkert. comi)luinai.t. and Samuel Fed'i , and Aureliii Uo>entlial. executrix of tlie laf.t will iiiid te^taiiKnt of Morris Itoscntliai, deceased, respondents, a di'creo \va> iliilv entered in favcw of the said complainant, which said decree is of record in the olliee of the ch-rk of the said circuit court, to which record reference is lierehy made and the 8ame is herchy expressly made a jiart Inreof, and as liy the inspection of the transcript of tin- record of tlie said circuit court, which was firoufiht into the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the nintli circuit, hy virtu.- of an api>eal a^'reealdy to tlie Act of Conjircss. in such cases made and i)rovided. fully and at laru'c appears. ANn WllKKKAS, in the year of our Lord one thousand ei<:ht hundred and ninety-five, the said cause came to be heard before the said circuit court <'f a|)peals. on tlie said transcript of record, and was ar;,'ued l.y counstd : On consideration wli.reof. it is now h.re ordered, adjud^'cd and de- creed, that the decree of the said circuit court in this cause he, and the same is hereby, allirmed, with costs. You. therefore, are hereby commanded that such further proccedin<,'s be had in said causi- as accordinj,' to rifjht and justice, and the laws of the United States. ou;.'ht to Iw had. the said appeal notwithstandin;:. Witness, the Honorable Melville W. Fuller. Chief .lustic of the United States, the Kith day of Novt-mlMr. in the year of our Lord niic tlii)usand eight hundred and ninety-five. F. 1). Mo.M'KTON. Clerk- of thr I'nitiii S(>it(s Cirruit Court of Appeals for the Mnth Circuit. APPENDIX J CLASSIFICATION OF TRADEMARKS. The follouini; classification of rofristcrcd trademarks lias hccii published in connection with the rules of the Patent Office. It is nndcistood to be a classification of pre-existiiif,' ref,Mst rat ions rather than as a guide to the classification to be observed in filing application : CLASSIFICATION OF MFKCHANDISK I NDFR THE ACT OF MAY 4, 1906. 1. Raw or partly jjri'parcd materials. 2. Receptacles. 3. Ba<,'j,'a<;e, horse e(niipni(iits. portfolios, and pockethooks. 4. Abrasive, deter>,'ent, and ])olisliin;,' materials. 5. Adhesives. 6. Chemicals, jnedieiiies, and pliannacevitical preparations. 7. Cordage. S. Smokers' articles, not includinfr tol)acco products. 9. Explosives, tirearms, e(iuipments, and projectiles. 10. Fertilizers. 11. Inks and inking materials. 12. Construction materials. 13. Hardware and plumbing and steam-fitting supplies. 14. Metals and metal castings and forgings. 15. Oils and greases. 10. Paints and painters' materials. 17. Tobacco products. 19. Vehicles, not including engines. 20. Linoleum and oiled cloth. 21. Electrical apparatus, machines, and supplies. 22. Games, toys, and sporting goods. 23. Cutlery, machinery, and tools, and parts thereof. 24. Laundry appliances and machines. 25. Locks and safes. 26. ^Measuring and scientific appliances. 27. Horological instruments. 28. Jewelry and precious-metal ware. 29. Brooms, brushes, and dusters. 30. Crockery, earthenware, and porcelain. 31. Filters and refrigerators. 32. Furniture and upholstery. 33. Glassware. 007 i'OS Ari'KNIMX .1. 34. Hfjitiii;,'. lif^'litiiii.', and v«nt iliif in;; apparntiis. not includinf; clfotricHl apparatus. 35. Hcltin;;. Imsc. machinery paikin;:. and noii imtallii' tires. 'M\. Musical instninients and siipplieH. 37. I'apcr and stationery. 38. I'rintH and puldications. 39. Cloth in;:. 40. Fancy p)o. Bi'verayes, non-alcoholic. 46. Foods and ingredients of foods. 47. Wines. 48. Malt extracts and lif Htuti'H not fonuiii;; part of tho union, who Jir.« iltimii'iliHl or havi- intlurttriul or romnu-rfial futaltlislimrnts in tin- ter- ritory of any of tho ntHli-H of tin- union, nliall In- assimilated to tin- huli- jjvtH or citizi-ntt o( the eontraetinj,' Ktates. Aktii 1 K l\. Anv pernon who has duly applie; states, shall enjoy, om re^'ards ref;istrati«in in the other states, and reserving' tin- ri^'hts of third parties, a ri;:lit of priority durin;^ the periosef the other stat«'H of the union hefore expiry of thes«' perioatents. i AinuLi: VI. Kverv trademark e (leii, wIh'Okt it form part or not of a trudc- niark. Akthm.k IX. All ;,'(M)(ls ilicpilly licariii^' a tradiniark or tradi'iiamt- may he wi/.od on importation into tiioHc statcH of tin- union vvlu-rc thiM murk or nam<; luiH a ri^lit to Icj^al protection. Tlic Kt'izurc shall Im- circcti'd at the rfcpicHt of rithcr tin; j)ropir public d<'partnu'nt or of the intcn-^tt'd party. |)ursuunt to the inttrnal Ifgis- lation of i-acli country. Article X. The provisions of the proccdin"; article shall apply to all poods fals'dy licarinp the name of any locality aa indication of the place of origin, wiicn such indication is associated with a tradename r)f a fictitious character or assumed with a fraudulent intention. Any manufacturer of, or trader in, such poods, established in the locality fals«dy designated as the place of origin, shall be deemed an interested party. Article XI. The hiph contracting parties agree to grant temporary protection to patentaljle inventions, to industrial designs or models, and trademarks, for articles e.\hihit<'d at oflicial or officially recognized international exhibitions. Article XII. Each of the high contracting parties agrees to establish a special government department for industrial property, and a central office foi communication to the public of patents, industrial designs or models, and trademarks. Article XIII. An international office shall be organized under the name of "Bureau International de I'Union pour la Protection de la Propri6t6 Industrielle" (International Office of tlie liiion for tlie Protection of Industrial Prop- erty ) . Tliis odice, tlie expense of which shall be defrayed by the governments of all the contracting states, shall be placed under the high authority of the Central Administration of the Swiss Confederation, and shall work under its supervision. Its functions shall be determined by agreement between the states of the union. Article XIV. The present convention shall be submitted to periodical revisions, with a view to introducing improvements calculated to perfect the system of the union. OIJ Al'I'KNIMX K. To thirt i-ntl oonfort-nccH hliall In- hiu-osHivrly licld in ono of tlio oon- trattinj; stuton by d«-!cj;iittH of the wtid HtatoH. The next mt'cting bIuiU t-aki- placv ill IHS.'i at Konic. AUTU-l.K W. It iH nnr»H'(l tliHt tin- liifjli cuiitraitiii),' jiaiticH ri'spoctivi-ly n-wrvo to tlu'nis«'lvf» the ri^lit to make srparatfly, as iM-twi-cn tlu-msi-lvi's, npcoiul arranj:»'nn'iits for tlio proU'rtion of iiuhistrial property, in ho far an sm-li arranjrrnu'nts do not fontrav«'iu' tlic provisions of the prraent con- vention. Aktici.k XVI. States wliieh liave not taken part in the present convention sliall !)•' permitted to adhere to it at their re(|uet>t. Such adhesion shall he notified officially through tlie diplomatic ciian- nel to the Government of tlie Swiss Confederation, and l>y the latter to all tlie others. It tthall imply complete acees.sion t« all the classes and admission to all the advantages stipulated by the present conven- tion. Aktici.e XVII. The executit)n of tlie reciprocal engagements contained in the jiresent convention is sultordiiiati'd, in so far as necessary, to tlie oliservance of the formalities and rules estalilished l>y the constitutional laws of those of the high contracting jiarties who are hound to juoeure the applica- tion of the same, which they engage to do with as little delay as possible. Article XVIII, The pres<'nt convention shall come into operation oin^ month after the exchange of ratifications, and sliall remain in force for an unlimited time, till the expiry of one year from tiie date of its denunciation. Tlii-» denunciation shall be addressed to tlie government commissioned to re- ceive adhesions. It shall only affect the denouncing state, the conven- tion remaining in operation as regards the other contracting parties. AUTICI-E XIX. The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratifu ntions ex- changed in Paris, within one year at the latest. In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto their seals. l>ated at Paris the 20tli March, ISS:}. (Signed by the Pleiiijioteiitiaries.) FINAL IMtOTOCnL. f Ofjlrid I Tin nsln t inn . ) On proce<-ding to the signature of the eonventirtii;4al. Salvador. S. r\ ia and Swit/.crlnini, fur tho protection of iiuluHtrial |)ii>|)(rt\ , tli> iiiiil|M'rt \ " an- to Itc iiiidci .stood in tlicir hroadt'Ht wiiH*'; tlu-.v art- not to apply Hiinjily tninierce (mineral waters, etc. ) . 2. (Relates only to patents.) li. The last paraj;rapli of articl< II does not alTect the hj^islatioii of ••ach of the contracting states, as regards the procedure to be followe.l before the triliunals, and the competence of those tribunals. 4. i'aragrajdi 1 of artich- \'l is to lie understood as meaning that no trademark shall be excluded from jirotection in any state of the union, from tile fact alone that it does not satisfy, in regard to the signs com- posing it, the conditions of the legislation of that state; provided that on this j)oint it c(mi|)ly with the legislation of the country of origin, and that it had been properly registcre.l in said country' of origin. With this exception, whicli relates only to the form of the mark, and under reserve of the provisions of the other articles of the convention, thi; internal legislation of each state remains in force. To avoid misconstruction, it is agreed that the use of pui)lic armorial bwvrings and dworations may be considered as being contrary to public order in the sense of tlie last paragraph of article VI. f). The organizaticm of the sju'cial department for industrial prop- erty mentioned in article XII shall comprise, so far as possible, tlie pub- lication in each state of a j)eriodical official pajjer. 6. [After providing for the common expenses of the international ofTice, continues:] The Swiss (iovernment will siiperintoiid tlie expenses of the international •)flice, advance the neccs.sary funds, iiiid render an annual account, which will be communicated to all the other administrations. The international odice will centralize information of every kind relat- ing to the protection of industrial property, and will bring it together in the form of a general statistical statement, which will be distributed to all tlie administrations. It will interest itself in all matters of common utility to the uirKin, and will edit, with the help of the docu- ments supplied to it by the various administrations, a periodical paper in the P^rench language dealing with questions regarding the object of the union. The numbers of this paper, as well as all the documents published by the international ofTice, will be circulated among the administrations of the states of the union in the proportion of the number of contrib- uting units as mentioned above. Such further copies as may be desired either by the said administrations, or by societies or private persons, will be paid for separately. The international ofTice shall at all times hold itself at the service of members of the union, in order to su])ply them with any special infor- :il4 APPENDIX K. Illation tlioy mny no<«l <>n (lUoHtioiis rcliitiiifj to tin- Internal pysttin i>f in(iu>«triHl |>n>|MTty. Tin- iiclniiiiiHtnititiii of tlic couiitn in wliiili llir next idiifirincf is til U" lu'Ul will inaki" |iri-|iiirati(>ii for tin- tranwiotionrt of tin' «onf»r«iuc, with tin- HSHihtftntn- «>f tiic int«Tnati»>inil ollioi-. T\u' dirtftor of tin- intfrnational ollici- will !«■ iin-wnt nt the nn'itin|;rt of tho conffn-nrvs. and will tiikf |mit in tin- disoiifision-.. hut without tlie privili»jj«' of voting. Hi' will furniHh an annual n'|M>rt upon his aduiinistrution of tin- ollic-i-, whioh shall In- i-onimuniratrd to all the nu-nilHTs of tlu- union. Tho ullirial lanjiuap" of tin- inti-rnational (itlu'i- will hr Fn-ni'li. 7. Till' |ir«'H«'nt final protocol, which hIuiII he ratiflcil t»)j,'«'tlnT w itli tho convrntion i-oni-ludcd this day, nhall hr considered as formin;; an intf):rnl part of. and shall have the same fore*-, validity, anre8ont protocol. (Sij^ned hy the I'lenipoteiitiarics.) ACCESSION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IKFJ.AND TO THE CONVENTION. The iindersij,Mied, amhassador extraordinary iuilic, declares that Her Britannic Majesty, havin;,' had the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Prop- erty, concluded at Paris on the 20th March, 188.3, and the protocol relatin;; thereto, si;;ncd on the same date, laid hefore her, and availiii}? herstdf of the ri^'ht reserved hy article XVI of that convention to states not parties to the ori-^inal convention, accedes, on l)ehalf of the United Kin<;dom of Creat Britain and Ireland, to the said international c«)n- \ention for the protection of industrial jiroperty. and to the said protocol, which are to he considered as inserti-d word for word in the present declaration, and formally en<,'a}i;es, as far as re;,'ard3 the President of the French Repuhlic and the other hi;;li contracting parties, to co- operate on her jiart in the execiition of the stipulations eoiitnined in the convention and protoccd aforesaid. The undersi;.'ne(l makes this K ACCKSSION OF CKKAT nin'I'AIX. (OffUnnl 'I rii iinIh t ion.) Hot Majofltj' tlir Quoon of tlit- liiitid Kin;:(l<>m of (Jront Hritnin uiid Ireland, liaviii;,' arctdc^l to tin- liitcniatioiial Coiivcntion rt-lativf to tin? protection of industrial |>ro|)erty, eoneludecl at I'arin, Mareli 2(tth, 1S«:1, together witli a protocol dated the name day, l>y tlio declaration of acctH- Hit»n delivered l)y lier aniliassador < xtraordiiiary and plenipoti-ntiarv to tlie (Jovernment of the l-'rencii i;e|.iildic : the t.\t of which declanitioti 18 word for word as followK: [Here is inserted the text <>f tlie declaration of acceKwion in Kn;.'liHli.] The President of the French Jlepuhlie has authorized the undersigned, President of the Council, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to fornuilly ac- cept the said accession, together with the reserves which are contained in it concerning the Isle of Man, the Channid Islands, and all otiier j)ossessions of Her Britannic Majesty, engaging as well in his own name as in that of the other high contracting parties to assist in the accom. plishments of the oliligations stipulated in the convention and the pro- tocol thereto annexed, which may concern tin; United Kingdom of Creat Britain and Ireland. In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorized, has drawn up the present declaration of acceptance and has aflixed thereto his seal. Done at Paris, the 2d April. 1S84. (Signed) Jri.Es Fekky. [L. S.] This convention is not self-executing, hut requires legislation to make it efl'ective in the United States. Ojjinion of Miller, Attorney-General, 47 Oil". Uaz. ;3!»7; Kx parte Zwack & Co., 7:i Off. Gaz. 1855. ORDKR IN" COUNCIL. (The Patents Act, 1883.) At tlie Court at Windsor, tlie 2(itli of June. 1884. Present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. WllEUtEA.s, by the provisions of tiie Patents, Designs, and Trademarks Act, 1883, it is, amongst other things, provided: That if Her Majesty is pleased to make any arrangement with the government or governments of any foreign state or states for mutual protection of inventions, designs and trademarks, or any of them, then any person who has applied for protection for any invention, design or trademark in any such state shall, subject to the conditions further pro- vided and set forth in tlie said act, be entitled to a patent for hij invention, or to registration of his design or trademark (as the case may be) under the said act in i)riority to other applicants, and such patent 1»1G ArPEM>IX K. or r.';;ititrHtioii hIihU Iihvi' tin- m»ih<- tlat<- as the «l«t<' of tin- prot.itioii olituiiifd in i«ucli fon-i;;!! htatr: And W hkii>:as it \\nx plt-aw*! II«t Majt-Hlv to makf an arraii;.'i-infni of the nntiiro wntmiplatrd 1»> tlio wii and in virtUf oi a d.ilura- tion sit;n.Hl and waK-d l>v Hit .Maji'j«ty"« umhaBsudor at I'arin on tin- 17tU «.( MHrch. 1SS4. duly convoyinji thr actH'twion of CJrt-at Krilain to the Int.Tnational Convention and I'rott>c(d for the I'rottrtion of Industrial l'ro|Mrty. »«ij:n«Hl Ity rfprrm-ntntivts of n-rtain powern on tlir 2(>th of Manh, 1SS:{. and duly ratili.d on the «th of dune. 1HS4, power lK-in<; red to Her Maji'»ty to hereafter aeeede to the provisions of Kaid itmvention and pr»»to(>ol on Ulialf of the Isle of Man. the Channel Inlands, and any of Her Majosty'B possessions, which deelaration of acces- sion was duly accepted l»y the French povernment on hehalf of the bijjna- lorj- powers by an. To tak.- effect from July 1. 188.-). London Gazette, 188r», p. :J173. Paraguay and Irugiiay.*— Date of order, September 24, 1880. To take effect from Sept<-mlM-r 24, 1880. London flazcttr, 1880, p. 472r). l"nited States of America. — Date of order, July 12, 1SS7. To take elTe.t from July 12, 1887. London (lazvttc, 1S87, p. :{S27. Netherlands East Indies. — Date of order. November 17. 1888. To take effect from March 17, 188!>. London (iazitic, 1888. j). 0412. Mexict).— Date of order. May 28, 188!>. To take elfeet from Se|.ten^l..r 28. 1889. London (lazrttr, 1889, p. 29.-»4. Curacao and Surinam. — Date of order, May 17. IH'.Kt. To take effect from S4ptemlMr 17, 1890. London dnzitte, 1890, p. 2891. .Santo Domingo.— Date of onhr. Oetoln-r 21, 18'.»0. To take effect from February 21, 1891. London (hizvttr, 1890, p. r»001. Roumania.'- Date of , IKllt. To lakr rlFiMt. from I'.l.niiirv 1'), IHl).'). Loiulon (laziltv, 1S!)4, p. ;V.llH. Doiiinark. — ])at»' of order, November 20, ISIM. I'o taki- .irect from Mureli 20, IS!);'). Lomlon (Inzrtti, 1S!(4, p. liHTn. Japan. — Dato of order, Oetober 7, IKOl). To take efTiit from nctulM-r 7, IS'.Mt. I.uiulun (lazitti, ISiH.l. ji. (\>4\. Hoiiduran.* — Date of order, Septeml>er '2t», I'.Mil. I o take elleet from Septend)er 2'), litdl. Liinilon (Inzrttr, 1!(()1, p. ti.'JK;}, (lermany.— Date of ordi-r, ()et»)lier !», l!Mi.{. I'o take eireet from May 1, 1!K):{. London (liizrttv, VMV.\, j). (i220. Cul)a. — Date of order, .laiiuary 12, !!)()'). To take efFeet from \oveml>er 17, in04. London (lazctlv, lOOfi, p. :{21. Austria and IIunj,'ary. — Date of order, .May 17, I'.tOli. lo take elTeet from January 1, IDU'J. London Gazette, I'JU'J, p. -AHiVA. OIIDKK.S IN COlNfll. AD.MITTl.Nt; IJKITI.SH I'OS.SESSIOXK. Queensland. — Date of order, September 17, 188."). To take eliict from Sej)- tember 17, 188.'). London Gazette, 188'), p. 442!t. New Zealand. — Date of order, Fel)ruary 8, 1890. To take elTeet from June 8, 18!)(). London Gazette, 1800, p. 727. Tasmania. — Date of order, April 30, 1894. To take effect from Au^oist 30, 1804. London Gazette, 1804, p. 2578. Western Australia. — Date of order. May 11, 180.'). 'Id take elfeet from September 11, 1805. London Gazette, 180.'), p. 2848. Ceylon. — Dati' of order, Auj;ust 7, 100."). To take elleet from June 10, 190'). London Gazette, 1005, p. 5450. Australia, Commonwealth of. — Date of order, Marcii 2(), 1007. To take effect from Fel)ruary 1. 1007. London Gazette, 1007, p. 2178. Trinidad and Toba^^o. — Date of order, Auf,ni^t 12, 1007. To take effect from August 12, 1007. London Gazette, 1007, p. 5G03. ORDERS IX COUNCIL REVOKING ORDERS OF ADMISSION'. Ecuador. — Date of order, April IG, 1886. To take effect from December 26. 1886. London Gazette, 1886, p. 1894. Salvador. — Date of order, September 24, 1886. To take effect from August 17, 1887. London Gazette, 1886, p. 472(). Santo Domingo. — Date of order. May 28, 1880. To take effect from May 28, 1880. London Gazette. 1880. p. 3035. fJuatemala. — Date of order. February 2, 1805. To take effect from No- vember 8, 1805. London Gazette, 1895, p. 754. * These countries, witliout acceding to the Convention, entered into cor- reaponding arrangement with this country. «»1S ai-ii;m»j\ k. l^hi.inKliina.— Dfttr of c.nl.r. Miir.li 2(1. lOOT. To inko .iT.ot from F.l.- ruHry 1. U»07. /..i»m/oh Uaz'ttr. liKlT. p 217S. WoHttTH AuKtraliu — l)Ht.- of ordt 12. I'>(t7. I.nmlim OaztUt, \'M\~ , \>. MM. ADDITIONAI. A( I M. tDI lA I \( ; I 111. INDIMKIAI. I'Kmj'j.KIA ( OW liNTloN ol' MAIK 11 Jo. ISH.J. .Sfci.NK.n AT IIIM S^KI.S, DKCKMIlKK 1 I. I'.'IHI. ( (tffiiiiil I raimhition.) Hit Mnj.'sty. tJo- i)\u-,i\ of tin- I'liitod Kiiipdom of Cnnt Britain .-iiul Inlnii.l. Kmpr.-sH of IikIui; His MHJ.-Hly. tlu- Kinji of tiu- H.-l;;ianH; tlio I'r.-hinal Convention of the 2(ltli of Mareh, ISS.S. and also as repirds the Final I'rotwol annexed to the said convention, have named as thoir pleni- jKitentiaries. tliat is to say: [Hrrr folloin the appoint mints of the picnipo- ImtiarirH] Who, after having' eonimunicat«l to cnich orther thoir respwtive full jKiwers. fonn.l in pn.d and due form, have a^ireed iipon the followinjr Articles: AlMKI.K I. The lnteriiati(.nal Conviiilioii of the JOth Maieh. ISSIl. shall he modified • H follows: 1. Article III of tin- convention sha'.i run as follows: "Art. III. Tlie snhji-i-ts or eiti/ens of states wliifh are not |>arties l«i the union hImiII he aH^inlilated to the h-ul>j«fts or citizens of the contrant- in;,' htatch, jirovided that thf the eontriK-t in^' sUtes, shall €-nj'.y, in order to admit of sin-h ref prioritN . tin- rif(litt« «»f tliiid part its lwiii;j iM-stTvc*!. "(V)n.H('(|u«'iitl\, siil)st'<|iic'iit rc^iHtratioii in one of tlic oHut Ktati-n of tln» union, iH-for*- the i-xpira-tion of siicli [M-rijxIs of tiini-, hIiuII not Ik" invali- dated by any acts aA'coniplinrlictl in tlie inlcTval — either, for intitunee, l»y unotlier rejfiiitration, liy the publication of the invention, or by tlie work- ing of it. by tlie sale of patte tradennirk. "Tile above-mentioned periods of tinu^ diirin^j whieh priority is jruar- antet'd sliall Im- twelve months for patents witii resiJi-et to inventions, and four months for patents for industrial desigiiB or models, as well as for trade ()r merchandise marks " 'A. 'I here shall be in-<'rt4'(l in the conx rut inn an Artitdc I \' bis in the following,' t(iin> : "Art. I\" /(IS." ( lulatts only to patents.) 4. The two following' parajrraplis shall be added to Article IX: "In states the laws of \vhi. Article X shall run as follows: "Art.. X. The stipulations of the preceding article shall be applicable to every i)roduiction w-hieh may falsely bear as indication of origin the name of a specified locality, when such indication shall be joined to ,t tradename of a fictitious cliaracter or used with intent to defraud. "Any producer, manufacturer, or trader engaged in the production, manu- facture, or tra all tli<- rlausi-s. as wi'll as admission to all the advantap-H Hti|»ulatrd in the present convention, ajid shall take elT«x"t one month after tlu- dispatch of the notification by the Swiss (Government to the other statvM of the union, unless a suhwquent date have bct-n indicatisl hv the accedinjj state." Ainici.K II. Tlie final protcMol annexed to the International Convention of the 2rtth March, I8S;i. shall Ik' completed by the addition of No. :J bis in the following t^rma: "3 6m." (Relates only U> patents.) Article III. 'Hie present additional act shall have the same value and duration as the convention of the 2nth of March. 1883. It shall be ratifed. and the ratification shall be deposit<'d at the Min- inatry for Foreign Affairs, Bru.ssels. as soon as possible, and nt the latest within a period of eighteen months from the dat«? of signature. It shall coine into force three months after the protocol of deposit shall have been closed. In witness whereof the respective plenijiotentiaries havi- signed the pr«'S4'nt additional act. Done at Brussels, in single ct)py, tlie 14th Deeember, lUliO. [Higniil by the l'lcnii}otcntiariea.] PHOCE8.S — VeRUAI.. The contracting parties having unanimously agre«'d that the exchange of the ratifications of the additional act to the Convention of the 20th March, 1883, sign«-d at Hrussels on the I4th Deeemln'r. 1!K)0, shall Iw effected liy means of the deposit of the respective instruments in the archivcH of the Belgian .Ministry for Foreign AtTairs, the present protocol recording the de|KJHit has Ix-en, for this |)ur|K)si', drawn up at the Ministry for F<»reign .Mfairs this 3rd day of May, l!K)l. (Ratified under data's an follows) : Unit«'01. , Switzerlanil, Augiist .I, IHOI. Denmark, (Mtober 10, 1001. rortugal. November r,, IKOl. INTERNATIONA I- AKHANGEMKNTa. 921 I'nitcd Kin^'iloin, Dcci'iiiImt Ji. llKJl. Hclnium, l)«'<-oinlMT 10, UIOl. Italy, DcccriiJxT 12, 11K)1. .Ia|NiM, April 21, I!t02. France, May 2.i, 1!M)2. 'ruiiis. May 2;i. \W)2. S\vfil»«i), .June -), 1!)()2. Norway, .Juno .'>, 1!I02. N»'tlifrlaii(ls, June HI, HK)2. In conformity witli Article 111 of tlie additional act of tlie ]4tli l)o- cemll)er, ]!)()(), the present protocol has been closed on thin date. The lidfjian Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Signed) P. De FAVEatEAUi Brussels, June 1), I'JOd. APPENDIX L J^cotion 1 of tho Act of .Innuary .'.. UW, (33 Stat. L. 000), iiu'orporatiti^' tho Anit'ricaii National K«'<1 Cross, is as follows: • ••«•••• Skction 4. That from aiul after the passage of this act it shall he unlawful for any person within the jurisdiction of the Tnitoil States to falsely and fraudulently hold himself out as, or represent or pretend himself to he. a momher of, or Bn apent for. tho American National Hc Commission shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed. Sp:ction 2. [Salaries— emplojiees — classified- civil service — e.rpendit}(res—rent of offices.] That each commissioner shall receive a salary of .^10.000 a year, payable in the same manner as the salaries of the .judges of the courts of the Unitetl States. The commission shall appoint a secretarv, who shall re- 923 !)J4 Al'l'KNDIX M. coivo a .tnlnry of .'«;.'),0("K1 a y»iir. payal)lo in like mannrr, and it shall have authority to t'inploy and fix the i-ompciisatioii of such attorneys, special experts, examiners, cltrUs. juid other tiiiployces as it may from time to time find ntH'r.ssjiry for the proper j)er- formanee of its duties and as may lie from time to time appropri- ated for by C^onpn\ss. With tlie exception of the seiTctary, a clerk to eacli conunis- sioner. the attorneys, ami such special experts anil examinei-s as the eommission nujy from time to time find necessary for Ihe conduct of its work, all employees of the commission shall l>e a part of the elassitied civil ser^•ice. and shall enter the service nmler such rules and refjulations as may he prescribed by the commission and by the Civil Service Conunission. All of the ex])enses of the commission, indudinf? all necessary expenses for transportation incurred by the commissioners or by their employees under their orders, in making any investigation, or upon official business in any other places than in the city of Washington, shall be allowed and jiaid on the presentation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the conunission. I'ntil otherwise provided by law, the conunission nuiy rent suitable offices for its use. The Auditor for the State and Other Departments .shall receive and examine all accounts of expenditures of the eommi.ssion. Skction 3. [liurenii of corporations nhoUshcd — transfer of o/»yVo//rr.v, etc. — pnmipal otVuc — ii)(jK{ries elsewhere.] That upon the organization of the (conunission and election of its chuirnum, the Bureau of Corporations and the offices of Com- nii.ssioncr and Dei)Uty Conunissioner of Corporations shall cease to exist; and all pending investigations and proceedings of the Bureau of Corporations shall Im- continued by the conunission. All clerks and employees of the said bureau shall be trans- ferred to aiul become clerks and employees of the conunission at their y)res«Mit grades and salaries. All records, papers, and j)ro[>erty of the siiid bureau shall become records, papers, and (»n»ix'rty of the conunission, and all unexpended funds and ap- j>roi)rintions for the use and maintenance of the said bureau. including any allotment already made to it !>>• the S<'eretary of Conniierc«» from the contingejit appropriation \'nr the Depart- ment of Conuncrce for tlie fiscal vear nineteen hiindi'ed and fif- Tin: I'HDKHAf- TIfAOK COMMISSION ACT, f "-'.'» tccii. or rroiii ihc (icipartmcntal print in^r rimd for llic fiscal year iiiiictfcii huiidn'd iuid liftct'ii, sliiill In-come IuikIs and api)ro- priatioiis available to be expended by tin* eoin mission in the exer- cise of the powers, aiit liorit >•, ainl duties eonlerred on it by this Act. The })rinci|)al otlice of the conimission shall be in the eity of Washin^'ton, but it may meet and exercise all its powers at any other phicc. 'i'hc commission may, by one or more of its nicm- l)ers, or l)y such ex'aniiners as it may desi^-nate, prosecute any iiKpiiiy necessiiry to its duties in any part of the United States. Section 4. [Definitions.] That the words (h'fined in this sec- tion shall have the followin|_' meaning' when found in this Act, to wit: ''Commerce" ineans commerce amoiifr the several States or with forei^Mi nations, or m any territory of the Fnited States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or "between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation. "Corporation" means any company or association incorporated or unincorporated, which is organized to carry on business for profit and has shares of capital or capital stock, and any company or association, incorporated or unincorporated, witbout shares of capital or capital stock, except partnerships, which is organ- ized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members. '"Documentary evidence" means all documents, papers, and correspondence in existence at and after the pa-ssage of this Act. "Acts to regridate commerce" means the Act entitled "An Act to regulate commerce," approved Februarv^ fourteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto. "Antitrust acts" means the Act entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopo- lies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; also the sections seventy-three to seventy -seven, inclusive, of an Act entitled "An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes." approved A ugu.st twenty- seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; and also the Act entitled "An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy- 0*JG Al'l'tlNDlX -M. six of the A.l i.l Au^'ust twciity-sfVi-iitli. fiKWitnn IniiulnHl ami niiu'ty-four. i-ntillrd 'An Ai-t to n'tlm-i' tnxation. in proviile ri'V- emu' for llu- (lovfrunu'iit. ami for otlur purposes, ' " approved February twelfth. iiiii('t»''ii lmn«irt'. Tliat unfair m.-tluMls of cnniixtitioji in com- inerce art' luTt'l)y (liM-ian-d unlawful. The commission is iicrcliy riiiiiowcrcil Mini dirt-cti-d to prevent persons, partm'rsin|)s. or corporations, c.xcj'pt Itanks, and com- mon carriiTs suliji'ct to the Acts to rcfjulatc commcrcf, from u-sinn unfair methods of conipct ition in coinnicrcc. Wlu-ncvor th«' connnission .sliall Iravo reason to hclii'vc that any 8uch person, partnership, or corporation has been or is usinj; any unfair nu'tiioartiiershiit. or corporation a complaint stat- ing its charges in that re.si)ect, and containing a notice of a hear- ing upon a day and at a place therein Hxcd at least thirty days after the ser^'ice of said complaint. The persmi)eti- tion in {|uestion wa.s used or where sucli person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries on business, for the enforcement of its Older, and shall certify and file with its application a tran- script of the eiitii'c record in the proceediiif?, including all the testimony taken and the report and order of the commission. Upon such lilin<7 of the ap[)lication and transcript the court shall cause notice thereof to he served u])<)ii such person, partnership, or corporation and thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the (piestion (h'termined therein, and shall have power to make and enter upon the pleadings, testimony, and j)r<>ceedin,t;.s set forth in such transcrij)t a decree atiHi'minjr, modit'yinjr, or settin' way expedited. No order of the commission or judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in any wise relieve or absolve any person, partnership, or corporation from any liabil- itv under the antitrust Acts. Complaints, orders, and other processes of the comniisKion under thus .section may be served by anyone duly authorized l)y the commLssion, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretarj', or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at the principal office or place of business of such person, partnership, or corporation ; or (c) by registering and nuiiling a copy thereof addressed to such person, partnership, or corporation at his or its principal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint. order, or other proccv? setting forth the manner of said serWce shall be proof of the same, and the retuni po.st office receipt for said comphwnt. order, or other pro('es.s registered and mailed jLs aforesaid shall be proof o^' the sen'ice of the same. Sfx'TION* 6. [Additiotinl jwwrrs.] That the conuni.ssion sliall also have power — (a) To gatlier and compile information cont'erning. and to investigate from time to time the orgjini/.ation, bu.siness, conduct, TFIK KKDKKAli TKADi: < ( ).\1 M ISSION ACT. O'JfJ practices, and management of any corporation cnRagcd in com- merce, exeejitinj; Imnks and eomiiion carriers Kulijeet to the Act to ref^iilate eommeree, ami its relation to other corporations and to individuals, a.ssociation.s, and partnerships. (I)) To reciuire, by general or special orders, corporations en- gaged in commerce, excepting banks, and common wirriers sub- ject to the Act to regulate commerce, or any class of them, or any of them, respectively, to file with the commission in such form as the commission may prescril)e annual or s{)ecial, or Imth iiiniual and special, icports or answers in wi-iting to specific (piestions, rurnisliin;^ to the commission such information as it may re by the commission. (c) Whenever a final decree bas l)een entered against any defendant corporation in any suit brought by the United States to prevent and restrain any violation of the antitrust Acts, to make investigation, upon its own initiative, of the manner in which the decree lias been or is being carried out. and upon the application of the Attorney General it shall be its duty to make such investigation. It shaP transmit to the Attorney General a report embodying its findings and recommendations as a result of any su'ch investigation, and the report shall be made public in the discretion of the commission. (d) Upon the direction of the President or eitiier House of Congress to investigate and i-cport the facts relating to any alleged violations of the antitrust Acts by any corporation. (e) Upon the application of the Attorney General to investi- gate and make recommendations for the readjustment of the business of any corporation alleged to be violating the antitrust Acts in order that the corporation may thereafter maintain its organization, management, and coudu<;t of business iu accord- ance with law. 930 AIM'ENDIX .M. (f) To niako public from time to time siu-h portions of the infonnation obtained l>y it licnuiultr, .xcept tnule secrets ami jnunes of enstomers. as it shall deem expedient in the public intereM ; and to make annual and speeial ii'port.s to the Con^rress and to sui)mit then-with reeonunendations for additional Ici^ns- lation; and to provide for tlie puldication of it.s rei)orts and dei'isioiLs in sueh form and manner as may l>e l>cst adapted for public infonnation ami use. (g) From time to time to elassify eorporations and to make rules and regulations for tin- purpose of larryint,' out the pro- visions of this Act. (h) To inve.stipate, from time to time, trade conditions in and with foreign countries where a.ssociations, eoml)iiuitions, or prac- tices of manufacturers, merchants, or traders, or other con- ditions, may afTeet the foreign trade of the United States, and to report to Congress thereon, with such reeonunendations as it deems ad\'isable. Section 7. \M(iy act as mnstor in chinc&ry when.] That in any suit in equity brought by or under the direction of the Attorney fJenend as provided in the antitrust Acts, the eourt may, upon the conclusion of the testimony therein, if it shall l)e then of opinion that the iTjmplainant is entitled to relief, refer said suit to the commission, as a master in chancery, to ascertain and report an appropriate form of decree therein. The com- mission shall prm-eed upon such notice to the parties and under such rules of procedure as the court imiy prescribe, and upon tlie coming in of such report such ewcptions may be filed and such i)roceedings had in relation thereto as upon the report of a master in other equity c-aus<'s. but the court may adopt or reject such report, in whole or in part, and enter such decree as the nature of the case may in its judgment require. Si-XTioN 8. [liecords, etc., of governmental departments furnished cotnmis.'e s<'veral departments and bureaus of the CJovernment when directed by the President shall furnish tlie commission, upon its itMpiest. all reconls. papers. and information in their possession relating to any eoiporation subject to any of the pronsions of this Act, and sjiall detail from THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT. 031 tiliie In tiiiir Mii'li olTiciaLs aini rinployccH to tlu; coinmisftioii as he may dirt'Ct. isECTiox 1). [Documental !i critlence — attendance of wn<- ■nesses — depositions — incriniitiatin;/ cridmce.] 'I'luit for the purposes of this Act the coiimiis.sidii, or its duly authorized a«,'(Mit or a^i'iits, sliall at all reasonable times liave ac<'ess to, for the puri)()se of exaiiiiiiatioii, and tin; ri^^ht to eopy any docu- mentary evidence of any corporal ion hcin-; investigated or pro- ceeded a«rainst; and the coniniission sliall liave po%ver to require by suhixena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all such (locuiiient-ary evidence relating: tt) any mat- ter un(h'r investiiration. Any memher of the <'onimission may sif^i subpd'iuis, and members and examiners of the commission may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. Such attendance of witne.s.ses, and the production of such documentary evidence, may l)e required from any place in tlie United States, at any desiprnated place of hcarinpr. And in case of disobedience to a subptena the commission may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of Aptnesses and the production of documentary evidence. Any of the district courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any cor- poration or other person, issue an order requiring such cor- poration or other person to appear before the commission, or to produce documentary evidence if so ordered, or to give evi- dence touching the matter in question ; and any failure to obey siich order of the court may be punished l)y such court as a contempt thereof. Upon the application of the Attorney General of the United States, at the request of the commission, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of man- damus commanding any person or corporation to comply with the provisions of this Act or any order of the commission made in pursuance thereof. The commission may order testimony to be taken by depo- sition in any proceeding or investigation pending under this 932 APPKN'DIX M. Act at any stage of such procot'tliiii,' or iiiv«'stipation. Siioli dopo- sitions may l>e taken hcfore any person designuti.l by the eom- niission and having power to ailniinisti-r oaths. Sueh testimony sliall be redneeil to writing l>y the person taking th.- tleposition. or under his dirwtion, and sliall then he suhs(riheear and testify and produce documentary evidence before the commission as hereinbefore ]irovided. Witnesses summoned l)efore the commission shall l)e pai' evidence hefore the commission or in obedience to the subpcena of the commission on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to criminate him or sub- ject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no natural person shall be prasecuted or subjwted to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concern- ing which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary' or otherwise, before the commission in obedience to a subpcena issued l»y it : Proridpff. That no natural person so testifying shall be exempt from i)rosecution and i)unishment for perjury committed in so testifying. Section 10. \I'c)i(iltics.] That any person who shall neglect or refuse to attend and testify, or to answer any lawful impiiry, or to produce docutiientary evidence, if in his power to do so. in obedience to the sjibprena or lawful requirement of the com- mission, shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof by a court of competent juris0, or by im- prisomnent for not more tlian one year, or by both such fine and impri-sonment. TIIK FEDKRAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT. 'Jliii Any person who sluill willfully iii;il<(', or cjiuxtc to Ik* made, any false entry or statement of fact in any report rcfpiired to be made under this Act. or who sludl willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry in any account, record, or memo- randum kei)t by any corporation subject to this Act, or who sliall willfully nejj;lect or fail to make, or cause to be iiuule, full, tnie, and correct entries in sueh accounts, records, or memoranda, of all facts and transactions appertaining^ to the busiiu'ss of such corporation, or who shall willfully remove out of the jurisdiction of the United States, or willfully mutilate, alter, or by any other means falsify any documentary evidence of such eor[)oration, or who shall willfully refuse to submit to the commission or to any of its authorized agents, for the purpose of inspection and taking copies, any documentary evidence of such corpora- tion in his possession or within his control,, shall be deemed guilty of an offense against the United States, and shall be sub- ject, upon conviction in any court of the United States of competent juris'li'ction, to a fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $;"),000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than tliree years, or to both such fine and imprisonment. If any corporation required by this Act to file an annual or special report shall fail so to do within the time fixed by the commission for filing the same, and sueh failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of such default, the corporation shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasure'- of the United States, and .sliall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the district where the corporation has its principal office, or in any district in which it shall do business. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of forfeitures. The i'osts and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the ex- penses of the courts of the TTnited States. Any officer or employe of the commission who sliall make public any information obtained by the commission without its authority, unless directed by a court, s'hall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished 934 APPENDIX M. by a lino not oxooodinp: ii;r),000, or by imprisonment not oxeoeding one year, or I>y line and imprisonment, in tlie discretion of the eonrt. Section 11. [Aiititi-ust Acts and Acts to regulate com- merce not repealed.] Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to prevent or interfere with the enforcement of the provisions of the antitrust Acts or the Acts to regrulate com- merce, nor sliall anything contained in the Act be construed to alter, modify, or repeal the said antitrust Acts or the Acts to regulate coimnerce or any part or part.s thereof. PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ANTITRUST ACT, DEFINING OFFENSES AND CONFERRING JURISDICTION TTPON THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. (Act October 15, 1!)14, 38 Stat. L. 730.) Section 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly to discriminate in price between different pur- chasers of commodities, which commodities are sold for use, consumption or resale within the United States or any territory thereof or the District of ('olumbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, where the effect of such discrimination may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of com- merce: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent discrimination in price between purchasers of commodities on account of differences in the grade, quality, or quantity of the commodity sold, or that makes only due allowance for difference in the cost of selling or transportation, or discrimination in price in the same or different communities made in good faith to meet competition : And provided, further. That nothing herein contained shall i)revent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade. Section 3. That it shall Ix' unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for .sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machin- ery, supplies or other commodities, whether patented or un- THE FEDERAL TKADE COMMISSION' ACT. 935 patonted, for use, consumption or rosalo witliiu tlio United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Cohimbia or any insular possession or other place undci- the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition. af,'reeinent or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, macliincry, supplies or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement or understanding may he to sub- stantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any' line of commerce. Section H. [Enforcement of provisions hy interstate com- merce commission-, etc.— procedure.] That authority to enforce compliance with sections two, three, seven and eight of this Act by the persons respectively subject thereto is hereby vested : in the Interstate Commerce Commission where applicable to common carriers, in the Federal Reserve Board where ap- plicahle to banks, banking associations and) trust companies, and in the Federal Trade Commission where applicable to all other character of commerce, to be exercised as follows : Whenever the commission or board vested with jurisdiction thereof shall have reason to believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the provisions of sections two. three, seven and eight of this Act, it shall issue and serve upon such person a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and con- taining a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The -person so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered hy the commission or board requiring such person to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person may make application, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the commission or board, to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the commission or board. If upon such hearing the commission or board, as the case may be, shall be of the opinion that any of the provisions of said l)3G AIM'KNDIX M. st'ctions luivo hivii or an' ln'in^' violatctl, it sliall make a roport in writing in which it shall statf its fiiuliiifrs as to tlir faits. aiiil sliall issue antl canst* to he served on such j)rrs()ii an order retjuirin^ such peiNon to cease and desist from such violations. and ilivest itself of the stock held or rid it.self t)l' the directors chasen contrary to the provisions of Heetions seven and eight of this Ai't. if any there he, in the manner and ■within the time fixed hy siiid order. Tntd a transcript of the record in such hwirinp shall have heen filed in a circuit court of appeals of tlie United States, as liereinafter provided, the commission or hoard^ may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in j>art. any report or any ordei- nuule or is«sued l)y it under this section. [f such person fails or nep:lects to ohey suth onh'r of the commi.ssion or hoard while the same is in effect, the commis- sion or ])oard may apply to the circuit court of appeals of the I'liited States, within any circuit where the violation com- plained of was or is l)eing committed or where such pei-son resides or carries on husiness. for the enforcement of its order, and shall cei-tify and file with its application a transcript of the entire record in the proceedinor, including all the testimony taken and the report and order of the commission or lx)ard. U[)on such filinj; of the api)licvition and transcript the court shall cau.se notice thereof to l>o seninl upon sucii person and thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the proceedinfr and of the «|Uestion detci'mined therein, and shall liave ])ower to make and enter upon the pleadinpfs, testimony, iind pniceedings set forth in sucli transcript a decree afl[iniiin<, l)y reason of the aildifioiial evidt'ncc so taken, and it shall file such moditied or new tindin}^, whieh, if snjtported by testimony, shall he eoneinsive, and its recommendation, if any, for llie moe final, except that the same shall he subject to review by the Supreme Court upon oly." Chatfield, J., in Spcrrij t(- Hutchinson Co. v. Fcnstcr, 210 Fed. Rep. 755. As to an alleged violation of § 3 of the Cla>'ton Act as a defense to a suit for trademark infringement, see Coca-Cola Co. V. Butler, 229 Fed. Rep. 224, 233, and ante p. 156. Kl'LKS OF PHACTICF HEFOKF TIIF CO.MMISSION. fAdoptjHl .Tuni- 17. ll'l."..) I. Se.«;rioxs. The principal office of the Commission at Wash- ington. 1). C, is open each business day from 9 A. M. to 4:30 P. M. The Corinni.ssion nuiy meet and exercise all its powers at any other place, and may, by one or more of its members, or by TIIK ri;i)K|{M, TUADK COMMISSION ACT. 939 such cxaiiiiiuTs ;i.s it luay designate, prosecute any iiHUiii'y neces- sary to its duties in any part of the rnitcd States. Sessions of the Commission for hcarinfi; contested prociiedin^^s will lie held as ordered hy the Coiiniiission. Sessions of the Commission for the puipose of making orders and for tlic transaction of other business, unless otherwise ordered, will he held at the oflice of the Cotinnission at Wash- ington, 1). (J., on each business day at 10 :30 A. M. Three mem- bers of the (.'onnnission shall constitute a quorum for the transac- tion of business. All orders of th(! Comniission shall be signed by the secretary. II. Complaints. Any person, partnership, corporation or association may apply to the Coinmission to institute a proceed- ing in respect to any violation of law over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Such application shall be in writing, signed by or m behalf of the applicant, and .shall contain a short and simple statement of the facts con.stituting the alleged violation of law and the name and address of the applicant and of the party complained of. The Commission shall investigate the matters complained of in such application, and if. upon investigation, it shall appear to the Commission that there is a violation of law over which the Commis.sion has jurisdiction, the Commission shall issue and serve upon the party complained of a complaint .stating its charges and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at lea.st forty days after the service of said complaint. III. Answers. Within thirty days from the service of the complaint, unless such time be extended by order of the Com- mission, the defendant shall file with the Commission an answer to the C9mplaint. Snch answer shall contain a short and simple statement of the facts which constitute the ground of defense. It shall specifically admit or deny or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the defendant is without knowl- edge, in which ease he shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. Answers in typewriting must be on one side of the paper only. on paper not more than S^A inches wide and not more than 11 mo ai'1'i:ni>ix m. inehos lonp, and \voigliin«; not less than Ifi pounds to the roam, folio hase. 17 hy •22 inelu's, with left-hand niarj^in not less than li/j inches wide, or they may he i)rinted in 10 or I'i-point type on pood, uncrlazed paper 8 inches wide hy IOV2 inches long, with inside margins not less than 1 inch wide. IV. Servick. Coiiiplaiiif.s, ordci-s and other processes of the Commission may be served by any one duly authorized by the Connnission, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a mend)er of the partnership to be served, or to the presiilent. secretary, or other executive officer, or a director, of the corporation or association to l)e served: or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at the principal office or place of busi- ness of such person, partnership, corporation, or association; or (q) by registering and mailing a copy thereof addressed to such person, partnership, corporation, or association at his or its principal office or place of business. The vertified return by the person so serving said complaint, order or other pi-ocess, setting forth the manner of said service, shall be proof of the same, and the return post-office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process, registered and mailed as aforesaid, shall be proof of the service of the same. V. Interventiox. Any person, partnership, corporation, or association desiring to intervene in a contested proceeding shall make application in writing, setting out the grounds on which he or it claims to be interested. The Commission may, by order, permit intervention by counsel or in person to such extent and upon sneh terms as it shall deem just. Application to intervene must be on one side of the paper only, on paper not more than 8V0 inches wide and not more than 11 inches long, and weighing not less than 16 pounds to the ream, folio base. 17 by 22 inches, with left-hand margin not less than IVii inches wide, or they may be jinnted in 10 or r2-point type on good, unglazed paper, 8 inclies wide by lOi/j inches long, with inside margins not less tlian 1 iiu-li wid(» VI. C()NTiKr.\N('i>; AND r.XTKNsioxs OF TIME. Contiiiuances and extensions of time will be granted at the discretion of the Commission. THE FEDKHAI- 'IKADi; COMMISSION ACT. 041 VIT. Witnesses and subpoenas. Witncssos shall be oxam- iiu'd orally, except that for jrood and exceptional cause for rchici^l Ui writiiifj by tJu- oflictr JK'fore whom tlu* ih-positioii is taken, or uiitliM* his iliivc- tion, after \vhi«'h the tlcposition shall hv subscrilH'tl In tiic wit- lu'ss and oertiiiod in usual form hy thV ofTu'iT. After tlu' depo- sititm has been so certified, it shall, toj^ether with a copy thereof, nuide by such oftieer or undir his direction, Ix; forwarded by such officer under seal in an envelope addressed to tlie Commis- sion at its office in Wasliinf»ton. D. C. T^pon r(»ceipt of the depo- sition and co|iv. the Commission sliall file in the record in said proeeedinps such deposition and forward the copy to the defend- ant or the defendant's attorney. Such depositions shall ho typewritten on om^ side oidy of the paper, wliich sliall be not more than S^-j indies wide and not more than 11 inches lono filed at the close of the teiitimony in each contested proceeding. The presiding Commissioner or examiner shiJl fix the time within whir-h liriefs shall be filed and service thereof shall be made upon the adverse parties. All briefs must be filed with tiie secretary and be accompanied Ijy f)rof)f of service upon the adverse j)arties. Fifteen copies of Tiir: Ki;i>i;ic \i. ihvdk < mm. mission act. I)4;5 each l)i'i('r shall he I'lii-iiislipd for llir- use of thn rommission, unless otlirrwisc ordered. Applieatioii for extension of lime in wli'eli lo (lie any brief sliall he hy petition in writiiij;, stating; the facts upon which thn application rests, wliich nnist he fihMl with the ( 'oininission at least five days hefore I lie time foi- lilinj,' the hrief. Kv«'ry hrief shall rontain, in tlir ofdrr hei-e stated: (1) A concise abstract, or statornont of the ease. (2) A hrief of the arjjrnment. exliihitint; a clear statement of the i)!)ints of fact or law to he discussed, with tlie reference to the paires (if tli<' i-ccord ami Mic au1 lioi'it ies relied upon in sup- port of each point. Every hrief of moi-e than ten pa^'es shall i-ontain on its top fly leaves a subject index with page references, the subject indexed to be supi)lementeil by a list of all ca-ses referred to, alphabeti- cally arran'f .liiiM- \:\. liMlO. CU. ;{-2S!t. .U Stat. L. 260.) AN ACT forbiddinf; tin- im|u>rtat ion. rxjiortntion, or onrriajif in intorstatc I'Ofiinu'n'o of falsfly or hpiiriouhly stiiniju'd artifU's of iiiori-liandisc niiulo of ^old or sjlvrr or tlu-ir alloys, and for otlu-r imriH)»es. Section 1. Goin and .siiakr articlk.s — interstate, etc., TRANS.MI.S.iS RWiniKKD. That ill tho viisc of articles of rncrchaiidisc iiunlc in whole or in i)art of j;ol(l or of any of its alloys so iriiportcd into or ('X()ortc(l from the United States, or so deposited in th.- I'nitt-d States mails for transMiission, or s<» delivered for f r';in-;i»nrt}it ion to any coininon ean-ier. or so transported or eaused to he trans()orted as specified in the (ii'st section of this act. the acfnal fineness f)f such ^'ol-^TF:sis — acti'al fineness REyriitKn. Tluit in tlir cas** of articles of incrchMixlisr made in whole or in part of silver or any of its nlloys so imported into or exported from the United States, or so deposited in the Tnited States mails for transmis- sion, or so delivered for transportation to any eommon carrier, or so transportinl or eansed to transported as speeifieil in the first section of this act. the actual fineness of the silver or alloy thereof of which such article is wholly or partly composed shall not be less by more than four one-thousandth parts than the actual fine- ness indicated by any mark (other than the word "sterling" or the word "coin") stamped, branded, enprraved or printed ujion any part of such article, or upon any tap. card or label attached thereto, or upon any box, package, cover or wrapper in which such article is inca.sed or inclased ; and that no such article or tap, card or label attached thereto, or box, packape. cover or wrapper in which such article is incased or inclosed shall be marked, stamped, branded, enpraved or printed with the word "sterlinp" or "sterlinp silver" or any colorable imitation there- of, unless such article or parts thereof purportinp to be silver contains nine hundred and twenty-five one-thousandth parts pure silver; and that no such article, tap, card, label, box, packape, cover or wrapper shall be marked, stamped, branded, enpraved or printed with the words "coin" or "coin silver" or colorable imitation thereof unless such article or part.s thereof purportinp to be silver contains nine bunilred one-thousandth parts pure silver: Providrd. That in the case of all such articl(\s whose fineness is indicatc'l by the word "sterlinp" or the word "coin" there shall be allowed a diverpence in the fineness of four one- thousandth parts from the forepoinp standards: Prmndcd. That in any test for the ascertainment of the fineness of any such article mentioned in this section accordinp to the forepoinp standards the part of the arti'l(> taken for the test. anal>'sis, or assay shall be such part or portion as does not contain or have attached thereto any solder or alloy of inferior fineness used for hrazinp or unitinp the [)arts of sncli artirlr: Provided, fur- ther. That in the c;ise of any article mcntiont'd in this section, in addition to the forepoinp tests and standards, the actual fine- FALSK STAMIMNO. KIT ncss of tlic oiilirc (]uaiitity of silver or of its alloys contained in such article, including all soldir ami alloy of inferior fineness used for hrazinortation of the article in respect to which such violation has been committed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than three months, or both, at the discretion of the court. Whenever the offense is bepun in one jurisdiction and complettMl in another it may lie dealt with, inipiired of. tried, determined and puni.shed in either jurisdiction in thi^ same maimer as if the offense had been actually and wholly committed therein. Skction C). "Artfclk of MERCiiANni'^E" DEFINF.D. That the expression "article of merehandi.se" as used in this act shall siiniify any poods, wares, works of art. commodity, or other thing which may be lawfully kept or offered for .sale. Section 7. ORTf:iN.\i- pack ahes not exempt from state, etc., LAWS. That all articles of merchandise to which this act applies which shall have been transported into any state, territory, di.s- trict or possession of the United States, and shall remain therein for use, .sale or storape. shall, upon arrival in such state, territory, district or possession, be .subject to the operation of all the laws of such state, territory, di.strict or possession of the United States to the .same extent and in the same manner as thouph such articles of merchandise had been produced in such state, terri- tory, di.strict or p.)ssession, nnd shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of beintr introduced therein in oripinal packages or otherwise. Section ft. Efftct. That this act shall take effect one year after the date of its pa.ssape. INDEX. References an: to paget, A 'Abaoni," 324. Abandonment — a (pi.-Htion of intent, 211, 21f., 217, r)73. hvirdt-n of proof in t'Htal)Ii8hinj,'. 213. by adoption of ni'W brand or laln-l, 214. by advertisement of sales a^'ent, 216. by dismissing bill for injunction, 212, 217. by limited registration, 217. by owner, will not confer title on another fraudulently using mark, 211. by permitting infringements, 37. by removal from premises, 212. by retiring partner, 32. constructive, 217. defense of, not favored by courts, 211. ofTect of, 22, 71. involuntary, 214. leaves mark open for adoption by another, 70, 71, 217. of features of mark not registered, 217. of mark owned jointly by independent dealers, by termination of joint business, 32. proof of intention of, 213, 573. terminates trademark right, 21, 22. Aboriginal Words— as trademarks, 14."). "Abricotine" (liqueur), 114. "A. C. A." (cloth), 98. Acceasorles— need not be registered, 552. Accidental Adoption, 17. Account — pending the suit, may be ordered where preliminary injunctirn refused, 4r)2. 949 950 INDEX. Til fcrrnrcs arr Id pagca. AcronntlnK — ns III) iiui\. cntlitH u|n>ii, 4«ll, .'iS'J. dt-nicd wIhti' (Icfciuhuit i^'iiorant of i>lnintilT'H mnrk, 310. plHintitT entitled tn refereiiee for. as matter of ri;;lit, wlu'ii iiifriiige- nieiit confeKw*! or proven. 4.">3. fefuwd lH>c>aU(U> of ac«|uifwence, 210. refuwd U'cauw of larhen, 210. rule tJie same in trademark and other unfair comiK tition eaBec, 4.''>»l. tratlemtTet aeeoiintin;,'^, 207. •Acid PlioBphato." I'S, l.iT. Acqnicicencc — a l>ar to relief apainst unfair competition, .'">2. ahvay.-* question of fact. 208. ran not l»e inferred, 20i>. distinguished from larhes, 208. • is revocalde, 200. may har ripht to aecountinj;, 210. no bar to injunction, 210. none without knowledge of facts, 200. tantamount to agreement, 208. Acqaiiition — liy alien, (i8, 00. Iiy assi<:nment, 01, 67. of trademark, generally, 01, O.'i. Action (see Action at Law, Suits in Equity)'— forms of, 412. for trademark and copyright infringement, may he joined, 40.'), 400. for trademark and j)atent infringement, may l>e joined, 405. failure to prosecution may cfTect ahandonment of trademark, 211, 217. for infringement survives owner's death, 400. for invasion of goodwill, 243. to compel registration, 574. Action at Laxr— r opirativc, W.W. in full. r,:{2. rc(|nircnicntH of rcpistration under, 5;J2, n. '.i. validity of. n.'J'i. ». 1. Act of February 20, 1905, 549. Actual Deception — need not l>c prove!), .'» 1 . Added Matter — in use of false mark, no defense, 333. may tend to miti<,'ate damages, 333. Adjectives — as trademarks, !•?. "Adjectives of the Language," may he instruments of frauds, 44, n. 34. Administration— of fjoodwill, 33. trademarks of deceased person should be conveyed by, 34. trademarks may pass without, 34. upon trademark, 34. Administrator — as plaintifT in suit for infringement, 400. Adoption — actual adoption of trademark indispensable, GO, 70. advertising mark is not, 65. date of. stated in application, not conclusive, 38!). priority of, not conclusive, 72. of mark abandoned by another, 70, 71. validity determined by date of, li)5. Advertisement — dishoni'st, deprives user of equitable relief, 75. misleading, when restrained, 54, 319, 347. not a trademark, 281. of fact of assignment, 81. i»52 INDKX. ;,', <, ...... < .1.-. t,. i>nffi-H. Ad vrrt IbIui; — Hit flfUlt'lit of (.'(MNlwill, .nil. i.linti. ami. ni.T.- uw I'f murk in. >\"<'^ u>>{ .-niitc trutl.-nmrk ri;;lit, il.">, ;').'>!. AdTertlsinR Solicitor— Hcation, 2.'>9. AdvUe of Connsel as a Defense— to rliar>:i' of iIlfriIl^•l•m^■Ilt, 4.'>0. to rhar^'c of iui(-l«-an IihikIh, 44tt. ••Artna Iron Works" Cn«o, 1 >!t< Affldnvit*— . .r jiiirti. inHiifTuMfnt as Imsis of pnlimiiLiry injunction rxccpt in ilfur caw, 47l». in fliii'f, in a|i|)lication for jiriliminary injunction, must cHtabliah all necessary facts, 47«1. must Im> entitled in the cause, 470. proceedinfj liy, on application for preliminary injunction, 47(». AfRxinK— modi- of. immaterial. !•, (').">, ft.")!. •A. G.." .142. A|;ent — act (lone at sufrp'stion of plaintifT's not an infrinfjement, 4.30. pKxlwill of, 222, 22.1. liability uf. for handlin;: infrin;,'in}r ;,'ood8, 402, 4().{. upon determimition of his iinployment enjoined from using word af^eney" upon his siyns, U4(i. Anency— < 1T< < t of fals«- representation of, .34»). Ain*eexnent« Upon Dlasolntion — how interpreted, 2.'U, n. 07. ••Alniworth" (thread . 114. ItiS. "Alr-Ccll." l.l, n. 24. Alabama Trademark Statutes, 020. Alaska Tradrniark Statutrs, 020. "Alba," .124. "Albany Beef," ..41 "Allrork'B Poron* Plasters." l»8. jNDi-x. 953 li'rfrrrnrrft nrr tn pnyvs. "Aldcrney" (nl.ninargurin*-) , 114. Alien— uhandoiiiii;; nmrk in I'liitrd Stat«'H, iiecniin-s no right by Bul)Wqu<-nt legiHlution in Iuh own country, 22. acqiiiHition of trudomurk l»y, (JH. fan not liavc trademark right an againwt a cidriii making prior adoption in good faith, (»S. might rcginttT undiT Act of IKHl, "):{(;, n. 11. need not aver tliat mark is used in foreign commerce, to come within fcih-ral jurisdiction, r)47, n. 39. trademark riglitH of, tiS. Alternatives — registration of, '.VMt. wliat may be registered as, 336, 540. "Aluminum" (washboards), 98. Ambiguity— as a defense, '335. Amendment — in Patent Office, right of, 584. "American" (sardines), 08. "American Cold Japan" (Paint), 114. "American Express" (scaling wax) , 114. "American Girl" (shoes), 114, 324. "American Volunteer" (slioes), 114. "Ammoniated Bone Superphosphate of Lime," 08. Amount in Controversy— in suit to restrain vendor of goodwill from re-engaging in busi- ness, 252. is value of trademark, .")4(i, n. 35. Amusement Enterprises — ])roteetion of names of, 173, 180. Analogy — value of. in determining character of infringement, 337. "Anatolia" (licorice), 114. "Anchor Brand" (wire^, 114. "Anglo-Portugo" (oysters), 98. 954 INDKX. RrfcrcnccH an tn pntfca. "AnKOBturn" ( liitt< tm . !»S, 11.'. "A. N. Hoxlr'a Mineral" (wmp'. 11' "AnnlhllRtor" ( nu-ilirinr I . ll.">. "Anaikti" (UitUTH), 147. Aii^wr r — f.Tin of, 8U3, Sm. AntlrlpAtlon — wliMt I nn!»titut<'s, 72. T).')!). •'Antl. irn (li'dnw to infriii;:rnitiit, A'yO. "Anti- Washboard" (HoajM, 11. 'i. "Anvil." :<-24. ••ApollinarU." 11... .{24. Appeal, 4f.4. .'•84. Appearance — i.f J.' 1>. iiii t ratlcniiirk in. n.'iO. Appendant. Trademark RlRht Must Be, 2tJ. "Apple and Honey" ( midicint' I , !t8. Application — what in KuHic-itiit. "f mark, !•. Application for ReeUtration (^ee ReRUtratlon). Appropriation — |.ricint\ <.f. t',!i. Arizona Stjitutf*. '■'i' Arkansii*. TrHdfiiinrk Stiitutea, tI2I. Article of Maiiufnrf ur«-. D«-Hni'd, .''ilU. not a traih mark. l.'l'.). Artlatlc Prodnctiona — unfair riini|>' t it i. INDKX. 955 It'lfirctiiiH an In /hkji-h. "ABictn ftiid Goodwill" — Hlllr <)l, rnlivcys t niiliiMH ik--, .'lit, )i . "iS. Asalfcnniciit — iis^i;:iiiiliilit y nf t liuliiiiai k^, ;;i'iirrally, .'!(», '(8, ri47, '>!'>. UHHifiin'f luiiiiiics triKlciimrk hulijctt to iMccHHity of coiitiiiinil iiwr, 36. U8Hi;;iut' must puliliHli filet of iiswi;:iiiin'nt, wlicii. 2!>, HI. aasigiH'c ran apply (ladtiiiaiU only lu nmur rlanH of j^oods as nHHi^jnor, asHignor may \>r cnioiMiMl fiom use <>f mark, .'It!, 17!>. general, in insolvmiy, tonvt-ys tiadcmarks witliout HjK-ciul mention, 30. general, of liUHinesH, eonveyH trademarkw without Hpecial mention, 30. limited to specified territory. 2!t. of distillery brands, 3S. of mark applied to the produet of a secret procosB, 38. of nuirk containing name and j)ortrait of former owner, 2!l, n. 75. of patent, elfect as to patentee's name, 181. of right to use one's own name, 74. of right to use proper name can not be reassigned, 244, »i. 33. of secret process, 38. of trademark hy imj)lieation, 212. recording, ^u'). right of assignee of trademark to use name of assignor, 81, 553. with reversionary riglit, 30. Assignor- enjoined from using his assigned name, 36. Associations, Unincorporated — names of, 10(1. "Astral" (oil I, !•<». Attachment — action for damages for injury to goodwill through' wrongful, 250. Attorney — goodwill of, 227. "Atwood's Gennine Physical Jaundice Bitters," 80. Antograyhic Signature — misleading use of, enjoined, 349. "A-V-H" (gin), 115. 956 >^'^'^-^- ItrfrniiKS arr to pagca. B •Babbitt'* Bp«t" (m>i»|)), IJ. ••Bacco-Cnro" ( nincily i , H''- "Baffle" (sjift'Hi, 11. 'i. Bailee— ..f infrin^'iiij; ^.hmI.-. auty of to mak.- dirtcov.ry, 40r). lf to injiimtioii, 405. Baker— -ooduill of, '111. '•Balm of Tbou«nnd Flowers" ( cosni.tii' 1 . 7S, (tO, 11."). Banker — j;oo(lwill of, 222. Bankruptcy — tradiniarks in. .'U). "Barbers Model" ( razors i , 99. "Baxaar" ( iiatti-rns) , 99. "B. B. B.." 11.'). "B. B. H." (iron), 11.'). •Beatty's Headline" (copy-book), 116. ••Bell of Moscow" (wint), 116. "Bell's Life" Case, 198. "Benedictine" (li<|U<'ur), 116. DeneAt Societies— iiamc'B of, 190. Bequest^ of ;,'oodwill, 2^2.'). of trademark, 'M. "Bethesda" (\vat«ri, 110. "Better Than Mother's" ( mini-f moat) , 09. "Bhr Hathi." 'Ml. Bill in Equity. liO. averment an to ownership, 430, n. 22. averm«-nt8 of ritizent«liii> of partieB, 420. defect on face of, mwht he m.t l>y d-mwrnr and not l.y pi. -a, 441. INDKX. 957 Rejercnr( H mr to jxtf/rs. Bill in Equity- ruiitiiund. form of, H.").'), Hlil. form of interrof;at«)rii'8, 8(10. form of, truil«'miirk infrin^'cm«Mit, H.')'.. S72, 870, 884, 8!M). form of, unfair comixtitioii, 8(>7. lu't'd not lie vrrifird, wlu-n, 4.{(l. not (Ifmurral.li- iHcausc prayin;,' for lioth iMufits and dumages, 429. hliould hIiow ii|i|di(iilii)ii of mark in fonij,'n or intcrstuto commerce, 42il. to restrain doalinjr in fraudulent labels, 430. to restrain diselosure of secret process, 253. to restrain unfair competition, 430. vrrifieation, 430. Bill of Sale— what words in, convey trademarks, etc., 30. "Bismarck" (collars), lltl, 170. "Black Diamond," 324. "Black Package" (tea), 99. "Blackstone" (cif^ars) , 116. Blind Advertising— appropriatinj,', 3(lti. "Blood Searcher" (medicine), 116. "Blue liick AVater," 110. "Bohemian" (beer), 99. "Boker's Stomach Bitters," 116. "Bokol" (beer), 144. ^ Bond- on preliminary injunction, 453. Book- device of, not trademark, 99. title of, as trademark, 93, 196. Books and Papers — discovery and inspection of, 471, 472. "Booth's Theatre" Case, 179. "Borax" (soap), 99. 958 INDEX. Iltfmurrs iirv to pagct. Bottle*— (Jihtiiictivi', prottt'tfjl, 2H7. nfilliiij; tnjiiiiu'tl, ;U3. ••BoTilcnr," ll(>. :i'JJ. "Bovrll" (n>««t rxtriuli, 117. Bozea — injunrtiiin a^rninst rtinipt-titor htiyinn, 300. "Braided Fixed Star*" {c\}iar li;,'lits), !)9. Broach of Contract — iiiiit in;:. US unfair cnmiK'tition, 303. Brewer — pKulNvill <.f. 222. "Bromidia" (medicine), 117. "Bromo-Calfeine, • 117, i:JH. "Bronio Celery," l.<7. "Bronio-Qninine," 1:57, 138. "B. T. Babbitt's Trademark Best Soap," 335. "Buffalo Pitts." r.42. Bnlk Goods— purchaser of, can not ubc manufacturor's tradi-mark used only on liis own paokanfH, 310. Bnrden of Proof- in cutalilisliin^' aliandonmcnt, 214. in «'Htal.lislii!i- priority aj^ainst existing registration, in application to rc;.'istfr, .")4.">, >i. 33. on applicant in intcrfcrcnccH, ri44, ji. 20. Htron^'ly upon complainant in rdilling ca»c8, 315. "BurResa," 324. **BnsineBs Connections and PatronaRc" — in. hi. I. • - Iwill. 22K. "Bniiness and Assets" — conveys trademarkH, 30, n. 7S. "BnstfT Brown" Case, 20.'>, 3.'»6. INDKX. 959 Reftrcmi H im to pngrt. c "C. A.," 400. "Cachemlre Milano" (cloth), 10(). California Trademark Statute*, 10, 028. California Trademark Forms, (;:{". "California Syrup of Fig«" (laxativi), 100. "Camel Hair BeltiuK*' (caw), l.'J, 4t>, 151, 100. Canada — traiitniark rij,'hta of alien in, GO. Canadiau Act, Rules and Forms, S.Tl, 842, 8.'50, "Canadian Club Whiskey," 107, 324. Cancellation of Registration, .'{00, .'i7G, 577. form of petition, (518. request by owner for, r)78. "C. A. P.'* (cream acid j>liosphate) , 100. Care— de^ni' 32, n. 3. Carriers — liahle for infringement, 404. "Carrom" (game-board), 117. Cartons — falsely indicating maker, 15'.), 300. "Cascarets" (cathartic medicine), 324. "Cashmere Bouquet" (toilet soap), 117, 32.5. "Castoria" (medicine), 100. Catalogue — improper use of, restrained, 260. Catch-'Words— l)y which ".'oods known to trade, how proven, 469. suggested by a trademark, jirotected, l.")l, 344. Causes of Action— ifinder of, 405. 060 INDEX. Urfncnrrs arc to page*. Cnntlon Notlrr* — aw r\ uliiu-f i>t luijiMificmc, "JlO. "CclcbrRtcd Stomitoh Bitters," 100. Crlcbrlty— iinnn' of, 88 trRili'mnrk, 170. n-fiiKtration of nam.- of. as trad. mark. 274. ••Celery Compound" (nifdiiin*' 1 , 117. '•Cellular ClothinR" (taw), 13, lUO, l.")3. "Celluloid." .T2.".. "Centennial" (ilothiii^', t-tc), 100. "Cere«ota" (flour). 117. .T2'>. Certificate of RcKl«tration— how assipnt'd, 07. value of, 54.'), .">81. Certiorari — prm-rally, 40.'). ')81. to review contempt procoedinpfl, 476. to review filinj; of articles of incorporation, 189. to review taxation of trademark, GO. under Act of lOO.'). 581. "Champion" (flour), 117. Change of Ownenhip — iKiticc to pnlilic, 'J". "Charley'* Aunt" ( farce title) , 117. •'Charter Oak" (hIovch). 118. "Chartreuie" (cordial), 38, 118. "Chatterbox" ( p.riodical i , 2('.. 118, 32.'>. "Cherry Pectoral" ( nudicinc i , 100. Chee»cmonKer— pK.dwill of. 222. hicaRo Wai»t«" (cortM-tn), 118. "Chicken Cock" ( whinkey > . 1 18. 328. "Chili Colorow" (condiment'. 1 17, r>41. "Chill Stop" (mi'dicine), 100. INDEX. 961 RefcrcnrcH an- to pnf/ea. "Chlneie Liniment," IIH. "Chlorodyno" ( imdii-iiial lomiioiiiul ) , IDO, 148. "Chri«ty'« Min«trel»" (ciim-), IT.'J, IHO. Cig;ar-Banda — Hiiniilation of, enjoined, 282. Circulars — false reprerteiilatioiirt in. deprive from relief, 87. injunction against, when eontainiiif,' false representationa, 319. Citizenship — averment of, concernin;^ corporation, not proper, 414 defined, o.SCi. diverse, must l)e i)leaded in federal i)ractice, 52. of applicant for ropistration, immaterial, 5.30. what averments necessary in federal equity pleading, 414. "Clark's O. N. T.," 323. Classiflcation^- of trademarks, sauggi'sted by patent ollice, 907. Class of Goods — must i>e stated in re^Mstering, r)37. infrinjxement must be upon same, 307, 310. in eases of unfair competition, 309. Clayton Act- as a defense, I.'jG. interpretations, 938. .sections enforceable by Federal Trade Commission, 934. "Clean Hands"— (Mjuitalile rule as to, 78. "Climax" (stoves), 118. "Cloverdale," .141. "Clnb" (cocktails), 118. "Club House" (^'in), 101. "Club Soda," 118. "Coal Oil Johnny's Petrolenm" (soap), 118. Coat-of-Arms — etVeet of addinji. to trademark, 444. not registrable. o'lO. of state or United States not registrable, 541. 9G2 INDKX. Fefcrrmcca arr to par murk fmm pnitritinii, HI, 106. Collocation — ill issiii" «if fraii(lul0. of non-rej:iHtraMi' words, .')0.3, of old word-i'lements, 500. "Comfort" (publication), 118. Commerce- trad. mark must lie used ill, 19. Commerce Clniise — »H baitia «»f fc. "Comnirrrinl Adverti«er" (caw), 2(11. ConiniiBsioner of Pfttent* («co Stntntra: Art of 190r>. mid Trade- murk Rule, of Piiteiit OfHc«), uction of, not eontrollcd \>\ niaiidanius, ■'>4.'l, n. 28. diitieH «if, judirial, 54.T. Nhall keej( a record of aHHi^nmentH, 575. INDKX. 9C)'.] I'ifi rt iirrs ilir In IHUJVH. Common Laxr — ri^;lit ii(l|,'«(l or <|iiiiliti('il l.v ri-f^intrution m-t, li», r>47, ". .'IH. Common to the Trade, <>!), 1.14. (I.'tiind. i:t4. ••xtfiiHivf HalcH (1(1 not iimkc trademark, litl. packa^'f may l>c, '2!H>, .'54.'). picture may be, l.'{4, n. r)2, 141. reaomhlunco in such particulars no infringement, 282. words, not subject to exclusive appropriation, (i!t, 1.34. "Compactnm" (umbrellas), 118. Comparison — by tlie court, linal test of resemblance, 467. no opportunity of, given consumer, as atrecting test of infringement, :u)2. "CompntinB" (seales), 101, 11!>. "Concurrence Deloyale," French oijuivalent for unfair competition, .'»0. Confiscation — al)road, does not deprive owner of his trademark rights within the I'nited States, tiS). Confusion^— of liusiness as evidence of right to relief, 48, .572. "Congress Water," 110. Congressional Legislation- basis of, lit. Connecticut — statutes and forms, 64.3, 640. Conspiracy — to suppress competition, ")(), n. 47. Construction — of contracts affecting trade secrets, 261. Containers, .34.'). Contempts — action upon, not reviewed on appeal, 476. by circulating matter prejvulicial to defense, 474. by ofTering infringing goods for sale, though no sale effected, 474. by publishing perverted construction of injunction, 474. by violation of decree, 474. 964 INDKX. Ilcfrrcnccii arr tn pagcit. Contempt* — (^ontinuod. ctiwtH of uii»uitfm*ful motion to coimnit. VM. cctitti* u|Min Hp|N'nl, -tUi. «-nliirf;in^ tlit-nf on li«-nrin^, 474. rrron«>»nii» action u|Hin, n-arlu-fl l>y n rtiururi, 47tJ. in dii«o)N>yin); i«ul>|><• |il«ail(n iit law, 4iri. Contlnnity — of nH<-, trHdcnuirk ri^'lit di pcndint on, 20. ContrACta — for Hair of |;tH)d\vill, 2:{.">. how conHtrut>d, 201. in n-ft'rt'nco to trade WHrets, 2ft3. in n-Htraint of trado, 2.'{.'i. not to disclotH' trade worrt, imprnil aH lM-tw»-cn master and servant, 2r.8. Contracta Affecting U>e of Trademark (see Statntea: Acta of 1881 and 1905)— not iinioiintiii;: to trannfer or assi;j;nment, rnu not he registered, 547, »i. 4(1. ControlliuK Feature — riiiift Ih- rej;istral>l»', ')(■»!. ConTeyance— i of 'all ItuxinesH and assets" convey« trademark, :5(), n. 78. "Copenhagen" (tinutT), lOl. Copyrights — action for infrinj^in;;, joinder of, 406. diHtin(;uiHhed from tradi-markH. 2. I'fTtH't o* expiration, on title, HI, M'S. e(T«'<"t «m re^jiHtration, '>'>',]. "Corona," :»2:>. Corporate Namea — aa trademarkH, IK.'t. fraudulent, enjoined, 178. j;»>v«-rned l>y winie prineiplea an namen of partnerwhiiis and individu-ils, 1K7. individualH iiHin;.', \H',> rcffiatralile, wlo-n, .'».'>7. INDKX. 9G5 Uifrrt iirrs air to pnijcH. Corporation — tail iiol anjuirc ri^^lit to ii»^i' iiri:x. ItrfrrrnrtH arr to pngra. Conrt of AppritU D. C— iirt, r»74. Conrta — juriMlirtion of. in niwH of unfair <<>ni|M t itioii, .'>3. CoTrnMiita — hot t.i r.- .nt'Hp-. 2:1.1. "CrRck Proof (nil.l..r). lOl. "Cramp Cnrr," 101. "CrrRm" (l.akiii;.' jM.wd.r. itr. ) , 101. 110. Credit* on Accouiitini>;. -J*'!- "CrnyHc" ( i>iiitnif)8. not nrccHHnry when- anirmiitivc relief sought by u defendant, 434. "Cronp Tincture," lol. "Crow" (wliiMk4V). ll!>, 12ri. "Crown Seixo" (chhi-I, ."121. "Cryatalliiod Err." lOl. "Cnpola," .'ij."!. Cuatomrra' Brnnda, 2ir>, n. Hd. "Cntlcura." I i'.t, .l.l.l. "Cyclop* Miirhine Worka," .■12r». "Cylinder" (;.'Ja"Ki. lOl. Cypher Code — imi.rojMr iiw ..f. Mli.ri r.HtrHin.-d, 200. INDKX. 9G7 Hiftri-iurn nrr tn pntjcH. D jiiinMiiit of. iloiK not lix jnriwlictioti of ftihral courts in trii7. counm'l f«'«'H HH an cU-mcnt, A^u . fliTtiun iH'twffii, and profits, in Kn<,'liHli practice, ATm. for invasitm of j;ood\viil. '1-1\), '2A\\. in actions at law, 41!l. in c-awH of imfair competition only wlurc iiit<-iiti<>nal fraud, 4')."). incn-asinj,', under Act of IDO"), HSi. jury may make inferencew as to, from all tlie evidence, 421. loss of sales as an element of. 421, 422, 42:5. lost by failure to imprint, HSti. may be miti<;ated by showing matter added to mark in use, '.V.V.i. nominal, in actions at law, 421. plaintiff must elect between, and profits, under Kiifrlisli practice, 45.'). punitive, can not be assessed in equity, 460. ])unitive. may be recovered at law, 410. punitive, only where fraudvilent intent shown, 41'.>. punitive or exenii)lary, where may be allowed where no actual dam- ajr*' proven, at law, 421, n. 43. Date of Adoption — determines validity of trademark, 10.'). Davids Case, r)(>.3, :>M, 8(11. "Day & Martin," 47. Dead Langnage" — trademarks consisting,' of words from, 14.3. words from, may l)e used as trademark, wlien, 14.3. Dealer — -oodwill of, 222, 223. in fraudulent labels, 208. j)urcliasinji infringin-,' goods from manufacturer, injunction against, 449. Deceit — action of, liy defrauded purchaser, 40."). Deception, 43. doubt as to, resolved in favor of complainant, 307. need not be shown, when, 51. probability of, as test of infringement, 290. proof of, when necessary, 200. '.HKS INDEX. Rrffrrucrs art- to pa(fc». Deceptive Marks — iu>t n'pirttraMi'. MI. Declaration (see Fomn) — ill iii-tioii of lr«'S|iiiss, 11 M DccoratiTc U«e— tlix's not aiitic*ipHt<', 72. Decree— (liriTtinfr *lif<'ii(iiiiit liow to U(*r a proper nnmo. 402. (lir«Ttory, j.'fiu'rally, 4«>2. Defendant (ice Partici Defendant) — nii>*iuo<'ssfully attai'hiii;: |>laiiitiir's titlt- is wanton tn-spaHM-r, 440. Defenses — iiliandniinuiit, 21(1. action at law iK-ttcr susocptililc of dcfcnsr than suit in .Mniity. 418. acqiiit'sccncf, 20K. added matter used with infrin<:inne to show defendant jiliie. d liis name, initials or address on in- fringing goods, 337. rion-infringf infancy, 441. of plaintifT adding coat-of-arms t«) trademark, 444. of prior use, inelTective, where user accompanied l.y false represen- tations, 443. INDKX. 9fi9 Iitfi irtira arc to pngcH. Defonses — ( 'initiinnil. of It j,'iHtrati(iii nf (Icfiiidiuit h murk, HI. of \isiii;,' iiaiiic and addrcHH in coiijiinctioii willi tnidrniark, 4 I "J. |daiiitill's failure to advcrtim- aMHigiiinrnt, Si. prior UHf niUHt lie on satin- claHH, 4-12. Hhowiiif^ that infrin;;finfnt Iuih c«'artcd, im-irictivc, IIK. tliat comijlainant in a J'arly to a coniliination in n-Ktraint of tradr, 4 .')(). that defendant a(l(i< d \\0, .'iSd. amount in controversy, .■)4r>, n. 35. anti-trust acts, !)25. applicant, 58(i. article of manufacture, 510. article of merchandise ( False Stamping Act ) , 048. citizenship, 536. coin goods, 946. commerce, 025. "common to the trade," 134. 970 INDKX. Ilrfrrnicrs arc to pagrg. Definitions ('i>i)tiiiii<-. location. ii'M'K n. 10. mislirandinj,', oGO. owner, .')80. pendin;:, r)84. person. .'»8(5. print, .')ir>. 8(». Kterlinj; ;ro«Kls, !>4(i. 8ul)Ktitution, 317. trademark, 4, 586. tradename, 10. trade si-crct, 253. treaty, 535, n. 6. United States. .580. Degree of Care — exp<'cte7l RcfcrcnrrM nrc to jxiyrtt. Demnrrcr— coiifrsscs iill(';,'iit idii of fraud, anil injiirictioii Ikhiich if ilcmiirD-r ii\:L iiitilli(i. 17 1. DismlaBal — of * aiu'fllution jjriKMvditiR, 578. "Dliqnc," 4.">1. Dlaalmllar 'Word or Mark— miiy iiifrinj,'«'. '.\'.i'l, ."nV.l. DisBolntion — of iiitrrferfnco, 57 1. uw of tradrmarka hy purtnt-rs on, 31. uw of tradf strrt-t.H liy purtiuTS on, 262. Distillery Brand* — assifjnahility of, .'JS. "Di«tiller«"— .fr.it of. 78. Diitinctivc— difin.'d. !•, n. 4. Inid.nmrk must Jh-, 0, 20, 40, 7."J. "Di«tinctive Names"— v undiT P\)od and l)ru;;s Act, ir)4. Distineuisliing; Featnre — iiiiirit In- rf;;istral)h', 5(51. District of Columbia— tourtM of app.als, jiirisdiition uiid.r Act of 1905, 581, Disuse — ahandoiimt-iit of trademark l>y, 212. Diverse Citi«cn«hip — iiniHt \;{. "Dr. Johnson's Yello^r Ointment," 40. **Dr. Lobenthal's Essentia Antlpbthlslca," 120. "DruKRlsta' Sundries" (cigars), 101. "Druggists' Sundries" — too liroad for class in registration, .'537. "Dry Monopole" (champaigne) , 102. "Dublin" (soap), 120, 541. "Duplex," 32(). Duplication — of tradename not enjoined, when, 48, note. Duration — of life of trademarks, 21, 23. of term of registration, 21. "Durham" (tobacco), 102, 120, IGO, 326. "Dyspepticnre," 120, 33f). E "Economy," 326. "Edelweiss" (perfume), 120. "Egg" (macaroni), 102. "Egyptian Deities," 326. "Elastic" (hook-cases), 120. "Elastic Seam" (drawers), 102. "El Cabio" (tobacco), 144. "El Destino" (cigars), 144. Election — between profits and damages, 420, 455. of remedies, 413. 974 INDEX. Rvfvrvnccs arc to paget. -Electro-Silicon," 1'20, I.IS, .120. "ElKin" (watchoH). 102. 1(54. "Elk" (cij,MirsK 120. Eminent Domain — -oo.lwill sul.jcft to, 220. "Emollla" (toilet cn-nm), 120. "Emolliornm" (Iciitlur dresKing), 102. "Empire" (8tovo»), 120. Employee — i'lijuiiu'd from disrlosinj,' trade secrets, 255. liable for iiifriii<,'cni(nt, 40;J. Empty Packages — eomjutitur iiijoim-d from buyinj^, 209. "Encyclopedia Britannica," 102. England — trademark lejrislation in, — . trademark riyhta of alien in, (iS. Engraver — of fraudulent marks, 298. Ensemble — imitation of, 293. Entirety- trademarks as, .')7. "Epicure" (eanned salmon), 120. Eqnality of Quality— no defense, .3.'{7. Equity (see Account, Accounting. Decree. Forms. Injunction, Interlocutory Decree, Laches, Master, Preliminary In- junction, References, etc.). acquiescenee, 52. delay, 20(5, 208. fraud confers jtirisdiction, 54. jurisdiction . "Ethiopian" (stockings), 120, 147, n. 24, "Eton" (cigarettes), 215. "Eureka" (fertilizer, etc.), 120, 121, 143. "Eureka" (shirts), 120, 143. "Evaporated" (food), 102. "Ever Ready" (cofTee mills), 102. "Everyday Soap," 326, 333. Evidence — burden of proof in refilling cases, 468. burden of proving abandonment, 214. burden of proving prior right, 213, n. 48. delay in order to secure, not laches, 206. expert, on (juestion of infringement, 460. matters of wliich courts take judicial notice, 467. of abandonment, 210. of deception, when necessary, 461). of defendant's sales, 469. of experts, as to habits of customers, 468. of fraud, 310. of fraud, particular instances, 310. of fraudulent intent — in criminal prosecution, 310. in other cases of unfair competition, 310. in trademark cases, 310. of good faith, 469. of intent oi contemner immaterial, 474. of loss of sales, 422, 423. of loss of sales, in action at law, 423. of other frauds, 311. of submission of others, 472. printing label in foreign language, evidence of frauds, 167. registration as, of extent of claim, 380. 976 i.NUKX. Itcfcrcnct s aif to pagct. Erolatlou of Lnw of Trademarks, IG. "ExceUlor" (wmp), 121. U:t. 2i:.. a2C. "EmceUior" (stovrw. vie), \~\, 1J3. EKclasiTr Licpnacr — inu8t !»• II jiiirty, .'iD. EzclnsiTenrBa — as tot uf trailiuiurk'H vulidity, 20. EzclnaiTc Use — defined, r)«4. Execution — may hv levied on trade (jeeret, 2(53. on guodwill, 22(3. Exemplary Damages — in uetiuns at law, 421, 422. may lie allowed where no actual damages proven, 421, r». 43. Exhibits— attaeliing to injunctive order, 471. demurrer may lie sustained on inspection of, 440. introducing conflicting marks, as, 440. Existence — >«f tradiniark right, 21. Expert Evidence — as to liabits of customers, 470. • as to variance in alcoholic proof in li<|Uor9, 468. on catchwords applied to goods, 4(>!). on (|instion of infringement, 348. on technical and seicntitie ([uestions, 4(i8. valualile in doulitful ease, 4(58. Expiration of Patent— eir37, n. 12. UTS INDKX. I\< fnntrrs arr Id pa<)rg. Fancy "Word* — prottvtrtl us tratlciimrk, 1 ;'>;!, 100. "Farthctt North" (Look titlr^ 'Mi'>. ••Favorit*" (lluur), \2l. "Favorltr" (l.-tt.-r tWv) . lo;i. Federal Anti-Tru«t Act»— private actions iiridiT, 'MCt. Federal Court* — jurisdiition conturnut with stntt- coiirts in trfidcmiirk canon, 31>r>. jurisdiction dipcndi-nt upon divcrao citi/tiisliip in caws of unregis- tori'd tradt-mnrks, 301. jurisdiction of, in oast-s of unfair compt'tition, '>'!. jurisdiction of, in Iradi-niurk cuscs. 3!),"), 581. Federal Statutes (sec Statutes. Federal). Federal Trade Commission — Act of September 20, 1014, ostahlisliin;:: Sec. 1. Federal Trade Commission — Creation — Membership — Va- cancies — Seal, 023. 2. Salaries — Kmployees — Classified Civil Si-rvici- — Kxpendi- tures — Rent of oflices, 023. 3. Bureau of corporations uholisiied — Transfer of employees, etc. — Principal ollice — ln(|uiries elsewhere, 024. 4. Definitions, 02"). T). Power to prohibit unfair comjietition — Procedun — Review, 02(;. 0. Additional jxtwers, 028. 7. May act as master in chanory, wlien, !>30. H. Records, etc.. of <:()Vernnuiital dii)artin<'nt^ furnished com- mission, 030. 0. Documentary evidence — Attendance of witnesses — Deposi- tions — Incriminatinj,' evidence, 031. 1(1. Penalties, 032. 11. Anti triist acts and acts to regulate commerce not re- |)ealed, 034. rules of the conunission, 038. Fees (see Statutes; Act of 1905, and Statutes of the Several States)— for re;.'iHtration of Irailiinark in patent otiice. .">78. rej.'intration, wli'^'1, n. ."5. Flag- not registrable, ")r)6. "Flinch" (game), 103. "Flor de Margaretta," 326. "Flor Fina" (cigars), 144. Florida, Statutes, ()'>3. Food and Drugs Act — misbranding under, 5(10. Foreign Adjudications — upon right to trademark. 200, note. Foreign Corporation — right of, to enjoin formation of new corporation under same name, 187, 189. Foreigrn Corporation Lia'w — elTect of non-eomplianee, 22. Foreigjners— had no special privilege under Act of March 3, 1881, r)4S, n. 41. Foreign Language- printing generic word in letters from, does not make trademark, 95. use of, as evidence of unfair competition, 166. words from, as trademarks, 143. 980 INDKX. Tirfrrrnrrs arc to pngct. (.HUM tor frit in;: tnuU-marks is not, r>7. 410. Form — ni>t rr^ihtralili- «>* trmlciuurk, r».{S, nutc. infrin^n-mrnt t>f. "JST. Form, Sisr and Color — no trad. mark in. JSd, -iSI. '2S7, 'I'lO. Former — adjudimtion, .")70. Formt (forms for state rcgistrntion arc indexed under the names of tile wveral Btatoe) — answer, H'X\, S'Mi. bill of complaint: a^'ainnt dealer in spurious labels, 867. trademark infringement, 85.'), 872, 870, 884, 890. iindi-r t<'n-year clause, 861. unfair competition, 8(>7. cancellation, application for, 61S. contract against disclohinj,' trade secret, 257. covenant not to re-enpape, 22;'), n. 52. declaration, action at law, 852. drawin;;. form of, 61fl. injunction : final decree, 01, 4.')0, 003, 904, 905. interlocutory decree, 001. writ. 003. int<'rrojratorieB, 860. mandate, circuit court of appeals, 906. oppoBJtion, notice of, 617. pleading re^'istration of trademark, 801, 881, 886. repiBtration, prints and laiiels: apjilication by: an individual — prijits, r>24. a firm — prints, 524. a corporation — prints, 525. an individual — labels, 526. a firm — labels, 520. a corporation — labels, 526. trademark n-yistration : petition. Oil. statement by an individual, 612. declaration for an individual, 012. statement by a firm, 01.3. declaration for a firm, 013. INDEX. 981 RefcrrnrcH arr to page$. Forma — Continued. trademark n-f^iHtration : — c-ontinin-d. Htatcmt-nt l>y a corporation, (il4. declaration for a corporation, (il 4. declaration under ten year proviHO, (515. declaration for a forei^'ii applicant, 017. notice of opposition, (il7. petition for cancellation, 018. Forma of Action, 40."). Former Adjudication — as basis for preliminary injunction, 4r)3. value of, 4r>3. Formnla — protection of, 207. relation to trademark, .38. Frand — as the basis of equital)le jurisdiction, 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 47. circumstantial evidence of, 400, n. 13. evidence of, 10(i. how charged in bill to restrain unfair competition, 430, n. 22. in using one's own name, 178. no fixed rules for dealing with, in equity, 340. m\ist be pleaded in action at law, 415. must be proven in cases of unfair competition, 43, 51. presumed from printing American label in foreign language, 167. presumed from wrongful use of trademark, 42, 51. Fraudulent Intent — how proven, 311. may be inferred, 204, 205. must be shown in action at law, 205. presumed in equity from wrongful use of trademark, 42, 294. proof of, 207. Fraudulent Packagea — liability of dealer in, 405. Fraudulent R€preaentationa — by plaintitT, as a defense, 417, 436. "French" (paints), 103. "Frencli Tiaaue" (medicated paper), 103. "Fruit Salt," 439. "Fruft" (vinegar), 103. Function — ol trademarks, 17, IS, n. 33, 551. 982 iNDi:x. Refercncrs arc to pagc$. o "G»lpn" ( nmiiuf«itnr«(l jjIukh), 103. '•G. E," (ilcftric lunipKt, :U'2. General Effect— (i.K-triiir of. :U«. Generic Terms — n matter of ovidoncp, 140. cun not \>v trademarks, T."*. 11.1. classified, I'G. common to trade, no cxehisive ri;.'lit to, conveyed liy renistration, 1.S4. la.i. defined, m. from dead languat^es, not valitl trmleniarks. 14:1. illustrations of, 08. include ;:eo^ra|)hical and descriptiv.- words and proper num«8, 93, judicially defined. 132. may l>e distinctive, ir)4. not made trademarks \>\ reK>>v sole owner of natiiral product and place of produc- tion, 100. as trademarks, (il. 03, 1.")!). can not l>c essential feature of trademark, r>41, classification of, ">41. false us*' of, vitiates trademark, l(5r». fancifully us«'d, l<5t>. may I'c descriptive or deceptive, .'')40, »». 24. not made rejiistrable hy aurroundin;,' jj;iH)metrical fljiure, 542, »>. 24. not n-nistrahlc, ^'enerally, 541. not re;;iBtrahle illidir Act of 1005, 557. not trademarks l.ecause generic, 03. protected a^'ainst unfair competition, 140. iM'Condary meaninj;, 102. when protected as trademarks, 102, 100. when rejfiHtrahU, 541, 502. who may cf)mplain of false use of, 102. why ohjcctionalth- as trademarks, 150, 103, 104. Gcorfcla, 6tatate>, 057. INDEX. 983 Rcfcrcncrs arc to paget. "German" (Hwcct cliocolutc) , Ki't, '{20. "German Honachold Dyes," 32G. "Germania," :i2(i, 535. "Germea," .'{26. ' Get-up — proiuTty in, 4(1, 207, 298. "G. F.," :U2. "Gibraltar" ( lainj) cliimnoys) , 10.3. Glassblovcrers and Glasi-stainera— {i;oo(l\vill of, 222. "Glendon" (iron), 10.3. "Glenfield" (starcii, etc.), 121. "Gold Dust." .320. Gold and Silver ^Va^e — false .stani|)in;,', !(44. "Gold Label" {l.n-ad), 103. "Gold Medal" (salcratus) , 103. "Golden Crown" (cigars), 121,327. "Golden" (ointment), 103. "Golden "Wedding" (whiskey), 121. "Goliath," 535, n. 6. Good Faitb— as a , 22(». 2:i!». 243. professional, 22.S. propertv in, 220. remedies of pureliaser. 24.'>. rescission of contract for sale of. 250. ripht of vendee to ro-assign, 233. rights of vendor, 230. sale of, 22.'). sale of, on dissolution, 238. sale of, conveys trademarks without special mention, 28. subject to eminent domain, 220. ta.vation of, 22«i. trademarks inseparable from. OS, 101, 'u'y. trademarks can only be assigned with, 08, 'uit. valuation of, .32, 238. vendee of, enjoined from re-engaging in business, 241. what words necessary to convey, 227. "Goodwill, etc."— 73. "Grand Master" ( cigars), 122. "Granite" (kitchen uteiisilH), 104. INDEX. 985 References arc to pagc$. '«OranoIithlo" (artiflcial Hton*-), lO-l- "Granulated Dlrt-Klller" (Hoap), 104. **Grape-Nut»," '.V.V.\. "GreatcBt Value for the Money" (hIkxh), 104. *'Or«en Mountain" ( Hcy tlu'-ntoiu-H, etc. ) , 104. "Grenade" (syrup), 122, ir)4. "Grenadine" (wyrup), 147. Groups of Letters — as tradfinarks, ;{40. "Guaranteed" (corsets), 104. "Guenther's Best" (flour), 104. Guilty Knowledge- need not 1>»' proven, wlien, 209. "Guinness," 327. "Gyrator" (holtnifj; macliiues), 104. H "Habana," 402, n. 16. Haberdasher — goodwill of, 222. Habit— of customers is foundation of goodwill, 220. Hallmarks — combination of as trademark, 72. "Hamburg" (tea), 104. "Hand Grenade" (fire extinguisher), 104. "Hanford's Chestnut Grove" (whiskey) , 122. "Hansa" (lard, etc.), 122. Hardx^are Dealer- goodwill of, 222. "Harvard Classics" (hooks), 122. "Harvey's Sauce," 104. 986 INDEX. Rrfrrmceg arc in pnfjra. tradfmHrkrt in, (iOH, <>11. "Hiulcton Boiler Company" (rasr) , 189. 'Hcadacho Wafer.." lOJ "Health Food" (.-.r.;!! prtxluctM i , 104. "Health PrcierTliiK" ( corsrti'K 104. "Hellotypc" (prinlnt. 1-22. "HermltaRe" (wliiskcy), .'J27. "Hero" (jars). 122. "Hif^hly Concentrated Compound Fluid Extract of Bnchn," 104. "Holbrook'i" (srliuol a|)iiJiratiis 1 . 104. "Holeproof (hosii-ry). 122, .'^iT. "Holland House" (caBo), .Sr><]. "Home" (wwinj; machines), 122, 327. "Homeopathic Medicinc»." lO'i. "Honeymoon," H27. "Hoosier" (drills). 122. "HoBtetter's Bitters"— infrinjrcmcnt l>y dt-alin^' in nuitcrial for refilling, 313. iiifrinp'd by otln-r words, .*<27. Hotel Namei, 3r)4. "Howqna'i Mixture," 122. "Humphrey'^ Homeopathic Specific!," 327. "Hunter" (hIkm-h, «>tc.). 122. "Huntaman'a Cherry Brandy," .322. "Hunyadi" cawH, 10'), 207. 207. H84. "Hurricane," 'M'.\. "Hydro-Bromo Soda Mint," 10;'). "HyReia" (wat.r), 12;{. "HyRlcnic" ( iindirwcar ) , lOf). *'HyKieniquei" (HUHp-ndern) , 123. INDKX. 987 UefertitvcH arc to jxigct. Idaho, Statntei, titll. "Idcftl" (foiiiilaiii piiisi, 123. "Ideas" — art proix'rty, 'M)H. Idem Sonans — ill propiT iianif cases, 183. Identity— (if infriii;;in;,' mark, 14, n. 21. Illinoia, Statutes and Forma, i\C)4, GG8. Illiteracy of the Consumer, 306. Illustrations — of <,'('m'ric terms, 98. of valid trademarkrt, 114. Imitation — of particulars common to the trade, 300. of trademarks, .'{()(). of trademark, may be limited or partial, 300. tlie rif,'ht of, 358. "Imperial" (l)eer, etc.), 10'), 123. Importers — may have trademarks, 63. Imposition — on tlie public, as test of infringement, 305. Imprint^ etTect of omission, i^tSCt. Improper Joinder — of other causes of action witli suits to restrain unfair competition, 405. "Improved"— addition of, to mark, no defense, 442. Inciting Breach, 'MV-^. India- trademark rifihts of alien in, fift. Indiana, Statutes and Forms. (>G0, 673. I^SS INDEX. Ifrfrrrnrrg arr In pagcB. "Incliau Pond" ( scytlu*Ht(>iu-H) , 123. "Indiiui Root" (pillH), 123. Indikn Tribes — . .null, n.- with limy 1m- wholly in a Hiii;,'lc Htut<', .')34, n. ."J. "Indiirnted Fibre" ( \V(>oy Iratliniiirk, 4. ». .'{. "In-er-Seal" (l)ak.ry proihu-ts*, 123. Infancy — not a doft-nsc, 441. Infant — liiihlf for costs, 400. Infringer— liable for whole profit on infrin^'inp article, 450. may recover from person procurin;: the infrinf,'iinent. 404. Infringement — hy a non-identical word or mark, .'521. hy applyinj; manufacturer's mark to his {joods not intended to be so marked, .'{l.'t. hy counterfeiting:, 'M\(\. hy ^'oods of e5. preliminary, refused where defendant solvent, and injury may be re- paired by money judgment, 451, ji. 21. preliminary, weight of former adjudications concerning plaintifT's title, upon, 453, 472, 570. refused owner of registered mark containing false representation, 54G, n. 35. right to, not lost by laches and ac(|uiescence, 208. value of interlocutory decrei' in another case, 473. when warranted by evidence of single infringement, 3(>0, 437, 443. who liable to, 205. will lie against registrant by one having prior right, 546, n. 35. Injury — need not be prr)ven, 448. Inoperative Defenses (see Defenses) — that the mark has l)ect>mc indicative of quality through extensive sales, 148. 900 IN'PKX. ItrfcrcnilS an- to pagrt. Inaanlty — iitit a tlcfiiiw til rliurj;f «>f iiifriii;{tin('iit, 149. "Insectlne" (inHcct jiowdtTi, \2'.\. Inspection — ««f l>^•f luiiflict ill;; marks, Itll. "Instnntnneoua" ( tiipioca i , !(».'>, 104. "Ininrance" (oili, \'2'.\. Integrity — H\ mbolizt'd \>\ trailomnrk, 4, >i. .'{. Intent— diHtiiution lu'twccn trademark and other cases as to, 294. generally, 29;}. immaterial in action in equity, 29;{. immaterial where no injury done, 294. of parties as to assi^mment of trademark, 212. successive changeH of dress as t'vidence of, 470. Intention — actual int;ht, 20. INDEX. 'J'Jl RrfcrcnctH arc to jutffra. "International Banking Co.," 1 ()■'>. International Convention— for iirotcitioii of iiiduHtrial property, 909. United Stut.rt II purty, 920. InterroKatorioa, 4S((. f..nu of. S(i(). Interrnpted Use — will not c-n-atc tith-, litl, 04. Interstate Commerce — ])rcsirit f.-dcriil act ndatt-s to trademarks used in, 19. "Intimidad" (cigars), 144 . Invention — name of an unpatented, 130. trademark not dependent on, 72, 73. "Invigorator" (spring bed bottoms), 123. Icora, Statutes and Forms. 074, 676. "Iron Bitters," 10"). "Iron Clad" (lKX)ts), 123. "Ironstone" (water pipe), 105. J Jeopardy — of mark by defendant's acts sliould be pleaded, 394. "J. H. W." (boots), 342. "Johnson's American Anodyne" (liniment), 105. Joinder — of causes of action, 40.'5. of parties plaintiff, 399. Joint Tort-Feasor — liable fur wliole damage resulting from tort, 460. licensor and licensee as, 179. Judicial Definitions— of goodwill, 218. of trademarks, 4. Judicial Notice, 467. 99 J iNi)i:x. /,', f.i. IK . < itrr In jKifjri. ~ Judicial Teit»— «>f infriiij;fni«iit. '.i\2. ••Jtillpnne" (sn\i|. i, lo.'i. '•Jnnkrt TRblctt." 12.1. :«J7. Jnriidiction— infriii>:<'nii'nt in iiiiothtT. 348. of itiuity biimtl on rij;lit of projxrty in Irnd.mark caw», 47. of «Hiuity in matttTH of trach- went, 2.'>.'». of f»'«l«'ral fourtH in casi'rt involvin>r g«MMh\ill. 244. of f.-f unfair compi'titJon, ')'2, :W2, :tO:i. of fi'drral roiirts in trH«lHl. of ft'dfral courts in tradmiark mtions iM-twrcn citi/.tns of Barao Htate, 52. of state courts, in trademark cases. .I!).'). of state and federal courts, concurrent in trademark caees, 395. where complainant an alien. r>47, »i. 39. "Kalier" (l.e.-r), «!), lO."., 124. Kansas Statutes, ()77. "Katharion" ( nniedy ) , 124. Kentucky Statute and Form, ti70. "Kentucky Club" (wliiskey), 10l>. "Kentucky's Criterion," :!27. "Keystone" (oil, etc.). iM. 124. "Keystone Line." 402. "Kid Nee Knre," !>.'>, 10«. "Kidney and Liver" (hitters), 106. "KinK Bee" I smoking; tobacco), 124. "Kitchen Crystal" (soap), 124. "Knickerbocker" (shoes), 124. "Kofflo" (cereal co(Tee), 124. "Kokoko" — alK»ri>,M"«l. refused re;.MHtra«ion as tra.hmark for cotton px.ds, 14.'». INDEX. 993 Itffvrrni-rK an- In paget. L Label— UH foninnTcial droHS, 200. (Icalor in, liuhlc f(ir (lamiifjcfl, 4.')8. (h-fiiu'd, r.2i. d('Hi;;ninji l>y ((Hirt for (IcfciKlaiitH (lirt-ction, 170. c'fTt'ct of prior uw by othiTH, 71. t-n^'ravor, liability of, 2!t8. falsi', avcrmciit.s of bill to n-Htrain dcalinj,' in. 2)l!». faisf. inanufacturc of, 2i)K. fraudulent intent of manufaotiircr pn'Humod, wlicn-, 2!»lt. if fontaininectnrea — piihlicHtion «if. n-ntraincd. 2rtO. "Leopold" (oloth). 124. "Leopoldihall," :J2S. •'Le PaRe" (;ilu<'>. 124. Letters and Nnnierals— ])rot«'cti'(l apiinst unfair comp«'tition, 330. whi'thcr siilijrct to api)r()|)riation as trademark, 4, n. 3, 338. Letters Patent — «'oni]iarr(l with tradtinarkH, 17. Levy and Sale — on -roodwill, 22fi. nil tradf secrets, 2(i3, 2(54. Liability— of all connected with infrinp-ment, 295. of contrjhutory infrinjier, 40"). of deception, in case of unfair competition, :. Libel- cliarj^'in;,' trademark infrin;.'enunt, .").'». in trade, .")3. License, ■'>n. a^ a defense, 'lO. joint, of patent and trademark, .')0. onc«' revoked, no defense to sulistH|iient infriii^'cnuTit. M. revocalde, to uim* trademark, r»l>, Ifi.'). to iisr mark <>r name for fraudulent purpose, 188. "Licensed Victuallers" (nlisli). 124. Licensee — f'Btopped to deny validity, 00. I'xclusive, must lie party to action, .')0. joint tort-feawir with licensor, 17!l. may >*w for infrint'em<-iit. .*>1l, 300. t Huit for iiifritij,'4'mfiit, 5)2. "liiebiR's Extract of Meat," 1()<>. "Lientenant James' Horae Bliater," 100. Life— of (riidi niiiik riglit, 21. "LlBhtniiiK" (hay knivt'H), 12r), 328. "Lilipntlan Bazaar" Caie, 352. "Llmetta," ."{'28. Limited Use— ctlcct of. r)3!>, n. 1(5. "Linolenm," 100, 137. "Lion" (mcrcliandiHc) , 125. Liquidated Damages — in contracts affecting goodwill, 246. "Listerine" (antiseptic), 125, 328. Literary Property — not ])rotct'tc(l liy tradi-mark, 197. Lithographs— improper reproduction of, restrained, 259. "Little Shop," 328. "Liveroid," 330. "Liverpool" (cloth), 125. Livery Stable — goodwill of, 222. Local User — mcrr, effect of, 23. Location — elianj;*' of, as evidence of fraud, 312. "Loch Katrine' (whiskey), 100. Locus Penitentiae — in dismissal for unclean hands, 447. "London Dry Gin," 154. 996 INDE>C. References arc to pagct. "London "WhilTB" (oijjnr»), 12r>. "Lonp Jack" (tolmcon). 12.'). :»)8. Los* of Sales — as jtr\v i'!li8ln'«l ill rasf.M of iiifrinjitnuiit, 470. Lionislana Statutes and Forma, (IT!), 082. M Made-np Words — as tradciiiarkH, 142. "Magic" (sovthc-stonea) , 12ri. "Mag^netic Balm" (ointm»'nt), 12.1, 137. "Magnolia" (wliiskt-y) , 39, 125. "Magnolia" (im-tal), lOti. Mail-Matter— protection oi, ISl. n. 38. 3r)2. Maine Statutes and Forms, (i83, 686. "Maizena" (corn flour), 12;"). B£alicions Prosecution — disHolution of injunction on final licarinfj as ground for action of, 4.14. "Malted Milk," 106. Mandamus — (iiMS not lit- to direct action of commissioner on trademark applica- tions, 543, V. 28. to compel issuance of certificate of incorporation, 189. Manufacture — trady our word trademark, 8. Marque de Fabrique — (•()in])rcli('iid<'d liy our \V(»rk trademark, 7. Married Woman — liavin}^ separate estate, lial)le for costs, 490. "Marshall's Celebrated" (liniment), 106. "Marvel" (mill products), 125. Maryland Statutes and Forms, 686, 689. "Maryland Club Rye," 107, ;}28. "Masonic" (eif^ars), 107. "Masons Patent" (jars), 82. Massachusetts Statutes and Forms, 089, 695. Master- proceedings before, 455. Master and Servant — inii)lied eoiitraet not to disclose trade secret, 256. Material — not registrable as trademark, 538, note. "Matzoon" (fermented milk), 107, 145. "Mazaw^attee" (tea), 144. Meaningless — trademark must be, 80, n. 19. Measure of Damages— in action for breach of covenant not to re-engage, 247. in actions for invasion of goodwill, 245. "Mechanics Store," 328. Medals — of award, fictitious, 312. "Medicated Mexican Balm" (medicine), 125. «.»1»8 INDEX. References are to pagci. •'Medicated Prunci" (nii'. i>f H»il>stiu)tinlly tin- satiir drscriptivc propcrtifH, Mfl "Metallic Clinton" (|iaiiiti. U)7. Method of ArranKement — , lu.t n tradimnrk, 142, 280. Method of Display— (iciijitivi'. 4S, Hiiti. MichiRan Statntea and Forma, O'.Mi, 700. "Microbe Killer," 107 Minneaota Statntea, 700. "Minneaota Patent" (fl<)\ir). 10, n. 8. Minor Differencea — of formH ami dress, no difcnso. .344, n. 28. MiabrandinK — undiT Food and l)ru;;s Act, ir)4. repiatration l>arrcd by, .IfiO. Miarepreaentation — as to Ki/f of paika^f, wlicn packngo is ordinary size known to the trade, 445. collatrral, 81. UW. cnjoiiH'd wlictlirr oral or «ritttn, .'US. in connrcticm with plaintilF's ^roodrt, 80. plaint iffs. .(Tret of. HO. plaintifT'H liy iiw of "Patent" or "I'atontfd," 81. |)laintitr's, hy use of "trademark," 8.'{. Miaaiaaippi Statntea, 700. Miaaouri Statutes and Forma, 710,718. MiaapcUini; — jjrniTic word does not make Iradennirk, n.!. Mlatake— in n^'istration liy a partner, creates a trust, .'t!»l>. n. ^,5. refund of feen pui7!>. INDEX. 999 References arc to pages. Mode of Application — imniatfrial, !t, ». tl. mubt hv Htutrd ill upplication for n-^'iHtration, 537. Mode of Packing — wIkii protcctid in i'i|nity, 'M4. Modern Foreigm Languagea — words taken from, us trademarks, 143. Modification— in patent olliee, 'MS. "Mojava" (coffee), 120. ♦•Moline" (plows), 107,351. ♦*Momaja." :}2S. ''Moneys, Stock in Trade, Debts, E£Fects and Things"— includes goodwill, 227. "Monkey" — not ^eoj^raphical, 165/ Monograms — as trademarks, 342. Monopolies — trademark rij,'lita as, 2, 56. Montana Statutes, 720. "Montserrat" (lime juice), 107. "Morse's Compound Syrup of Yellow Dock Root." 320. Mortgage — of assets of business does not necessarily include goodwill, 228, n. 72. of goodwill, 220. Mortgagee — lien of, upon infringing goods, 404. Motions — for injunction, 451. for particulars, 434. to dismiss, 432. to dissolve, 572, 573. to strike, 436. to suppress evidence, 574. Motive — immaterial, 293. 10(X) INPKX. Rrfrrcncca arc to paget. "Mottled Grrman Soap." A29. •Moxlc Nerve Food." .{•20. "Mount Vernon Rye," 287. "Mnfflet" ( iii'ck miirfsi, 126. Musical OrKaniBation— iiaiin' of, ISO. N Name (lee Proper Names) — allix.'.l to .^lal.lisliiiiriil, 170. iioc»'8sary, of a product. l.U. of lKH)k. !U. of r.-l<-l.rity, 170. of drfiiulant, added to mark, circumstance in his favor, 337. of patented article, 88. of i>at«iited article, not rcfjistrahlc, 90. of place of amusement, 170. of secret preparation, 2.")3. one's* own, 74, 171, 172. , Name of Patented Article—* made puhliri juris by exi)iration of patent, 88. protected from unfair competition after expiration of patent, 15L Names — C'hriHtian, of ap|tlicaiitrt for registration should be given, 536. of iK-nefit societies, l'.)0. of celebrities, 170. of corporations, 183. proper, in trade, 172. right to assume, 171, ri. T). "Napoleon" (ci^'ars l , 12y, 321. Non-Infringement, defense of, 418. "Normal," 320. Nortk Carolina Statutes and Forms, 757, 763. Nort Dakota Statutes, 764; form, 767. Notice — before suit, inadvisalile. 438, 490. defendant not entitled to, 438. effect of, 53. want of, no defense, 438. 1002 INDl.X. I\i frnttrcs nrr to pntjct. Noticr of Oppoaition fi)rin of. U17. rt-^ininitos of, ">tl7. ••No-To-Bac" ( imdiiin.-) . 12«1, :j:J4. "Nonrishinic London" (xtout), IU8. Nnnirrals — as trademarks, .'I.'IS. "O. F. C." (wliiskfy). VIW, 342. OiFer of Sabmiaiion (see Snbmisaion). Official Brand— ii.it a tradiiiiark. .">:{2. Officers of Corporations— whi*n lialtU' for infringomont, 403. Ohio Statutes, TtiS; forms. 773. Oklahoma Statutes, 774. "Old Bourbon" ( wliiskcy ) . 108. "Old Country" (soap), 108. "Old Crow" (whiskry), 12G. "Old Innishowen" (whiskey), 108. "Old London Dock" (iiU\\ , 108. "Old Mill" (soap), 320. "Old Pepper" ( wliiskcy i , 77, 213. "Old Slc-uth Library" Case, 1!I7. "Olive" (liiryclt'B), 108. "Omeea Oil" (liniment), 120. OiuuibuB — as inHtrnniiiit of unfair trade, .'SO. "Oii«- Night Cure," .V.W. INDKX. 1003 TiefcrcnrcH arc to payrs. Ome'a Own Name — ;;tn(Tnlly, •(■>• ^'ratuitouB pi-rmioHion to uw, may \»' withdrawn at will, 209, n. 18. injunction a^'ainnt uw of, after asBif^mont, ISl. ri'vocation of license to use, 182. Hale of ri^'ht tt) tise, 172. "Only Gennlne" — improperly used l)y one not havinj,' e.\cluBJve title, 30. "Oomoo" (cotton -ijoods), 14"). Opinion Evidence — iis tit proliiihility nf (lccci)tion, 348. "Opportunity of Comparison," 343. Opposition — notice, for, (!17. proceedinfrs in. 300, nfif), 560, fiOT, 568, 569, 570, 571. right of opposer to register, 570. user by opposer necessary, 500. what proof admissible, 568. when maintainable by corporation, 566. Oral Representations — of identity, enjoined whi'n false, 318. Oregon Statutes and Forms, 776, 780. "Oriental Cream" Case, 108. "Origin or Ownership" — generally, 4, n. 3, 44. test of. 157. "Original"— use of. after expiration of patent, 151. Originality— not a test of trademark right, 17, 70. "Osborne Honse" Case, 213. "Osnian" (towels), 127. "Otaka" (biscuit), 127. Ow^nership — change of, public should be notified of. 29. joint and several, 58, 130. need not be indicated in connection with mark, 8. prerequisite to registration, 532. "Oxford" (bibles), 127. 1004 INDEX. Refcrmrrs nrr to pages. P PackaKe*^ iiiii imt Ih- II trudrniiirk, I }0, 2'M . (litttin^iuislu'd from ronti'iitH, .'{14. rmpty. restraint of r(>ni|M'titt»r from Imying, 291). frnti(liili-nt. lialiility of dtaltr in, lO.'i. priMjf «>f ilfffption l>y, 'IW). protection in iisi- of, '2!l7. Packini; — mtthoil of. not trml.inark. 142, 280. "Pain-Killer" (mftUcino) , 127. PalminK Ofif— rnjoinod, 42. "Pancoait." 320. "Parabola" (nct'dU's), 127. "Paraffin" (oil). 108. "Paragon," 32f>. "Parchee«i" (^jami'), 108. "Pari*" (;:art(Tsi. 127. "Parion'« Purgative" (pills), 108. Parties Defendant, 2!).'i. Parties Plaintiff— muKt intludf I'.xcluHivf lict'iiace, oO, .390. whore trademark is incident to realty, 400. who may he, 167. Partner- when trustee of mark for firms' henefit. .199. ». 35. Partnertliip — administration of partnership estate, 34. agrwmentB upon dinsolution, 234, ?i. 97. efTect of retirement of one partner, 3.'). (foodwill of, .3.'). injunction liv witlidrawin^' partner a^rainst iis<' of firm name, 245. name must not inijxtrt incorporation (in Illinois), 1S9. 49, h. 19. ri^'htw of partners in trademarks on dissolution, .">S. 243. hale «if ^'ocMlwill on disaolution conveys tradmuirks without spwial mention, 32. trademarkH of individuals merj,'ed in partm rship prup.rty, 34. INDEX. * 1005 Rffvrtncca are to pages. Partnorahip Namea, 74. "PaaainK Off"— tlic i;n;,'lisli i;S. lOlt. ^(M). titl.s ..f, lis triul.miirks, 11. inS. ino. Prrpctnal E«i«tencc of Trademark*, 21. ••Persian" (tlir.ml). 1J7. Personal RepreBentatlve— ^'(KKlwill ^'IM'H to, '240. *'Pe»«endede" ( watilurt^ . 147. ••Philadelphia" (Im-.ti. !()!>. Philippine*— [ir.itritiim of rf^iistcn'tl tradomarkfl in, 60*.), Gil. Phonograph Record* — imitation of, 282. PhotoK^aph* — iin|iroiMr rtproduotion of. rcHtrainod, 2.'>9, 273. Picture*— as trademarks, 141. common to tin- trade, l.'J'), ». •">2. HI. descriptivf, not a trademark, 141. Physician — ;r,„„l\\ill i.f. 22:t. "PiK* in Clover" (pu/./.lii, 127. "Pile Leclancha," 4.')1. Place* of Anin*en\ent— names of, 17!'. Play Title a« Trademark. 202. Plea^ eaii not naeli defects upon face of liill. 441. in avoidanee of 7 RrfvrvncvH arr t2"2. hi^rnntiin' to, otc, ri21. commi!4. of celebrity, 170. of first owner of mark being included in mark does not render it unassignable, 20. registration of, under Act of ino."), 541). secondary meaning, 108. the right to assume, 171. the use of one's own name, 35, 178. "Property, Credits and Effects"— goodwill not included in, 227. Protection — relative, of patents and trademarks, 16. Publication- etfect of, 567. Public Policy— as to contracts involving title, 58. as to covenants not to re-engage, 235. 1010 INDEX. ItrfirrnrrH air to page*. Publirl Jnrl*— cxtt-iittivc H4il«- «liH-H not rt-iuUr iimrk. 134. tt-»t of wlu'tluT word liUH lu'conii', 141'. that murk Iihh iMroiUf, uh u (It-frnm', 1:54. \viirtl« iiiny iK-oonu-. \>\ lurlu'«, 14S. -Pnddlnr." 1J7. XH. PnfflnK— liariiil.-> mi.-ri|insintatii«ii. 44."). Pnnitlyr Damage* — allo\vc>d where no actuHl dumu^f proven, 421, note. can not he a8w»s»ed in (Hjnity, 400. in actionH at law, 41!i. Purchairr — dr^Tre of eare of, ;}04. |)rrsnni])tion« a« to care of, 303. Pure Food Law— di?itiiuti\f iiiinu'S. l.'»4. mishraiKliii;: under, 1">4. tradeiianif as defense to violation of, 80. "Pnrlty" (oleoniar^iarine) , 100. Q Quack Medicines — trademarks applied to, are not protected. 2'28, 2r)4. Quality— delin.d. 132. (inferiority or superiority! of infrinj^ing goods immaterial, 338L not indicated liy trademark, 20. "Queen" (s1i(M'«), 127. 104. "Queen Quality" ( slioes i , 127. 104. B "Radium" (silk), 128. "RaleiKh," 100. "Ranier" (iK-erl. 128. Real-Estate Dealer- mark U'-ed liv. not a trademark, 532, n. 3. "Red Crota"— Act «.f .Fanuarv .'i, 1000, 022. INDEX. 1011 UcfcrcnccH arc to pagc$. ♦'Red Croia Plaitcr," :J2.J. "Red" (rtiiiilTi, lO'.l. Referee — tfliu'tiuicc to (li^tiiil) fimliiigH of, in compi'ti'iit cuhch, 474. Reference — for iiccoiiiitiiin, 4")4. Refilling— luirdcn of proof in ciiscs of, .'}!.'). «'iijoiii('(l t'Vi'ii wlii'ii (lorn- at the customer'H ri-qucst, 313. packagi'S with ajjurious goods, 313. ReflttinB— 1 1 adiinarked articles, 3iIo. Refund — of Tatciit Oflice fees, 579. "Registered Trademark" — falsely iinin intiiij.'. Sd. Registration (see Forms; Statutes; Trademark Rules of Patent Office)— action to compel, .'')74. advantages of, 384. application for, .'i53. a prereciuisite to trademark rifzht under English statute, 20. as evidence of e.\t«'nt of registrant's claim, 386. by aliens, r)03, n. 7, .'")4n, .')!)0. by one partner through mistake, 3i)!), h. 3."). can not validate mark otluTwiae invalid. 66. certificate will issue to assignee, ru'^. citizenship of applicant immaterial, .>40. class of goods must be stated, 54!t. constitutionality of Act of IflO.l, 37!l. (late of adoption stated in application not conclusive, 380. defense that it does not make valid trademark of mark common to the trade, 417. description of essential feat\ires, ■)37, ". 13. disadvantages of, 386. does not preclude third party, 546, n. 35. doubts as to similarity resolved against applicant, .540, n. 20, ;>63. effect given by state courts, 565. features of mark not inclmled in. aliandoned, 38(5. federal, advantages of. 384. fraudulent, cfTcct of. 67. function of commissioner in applications for, as to title, 543, n. 27. 1012 INDEX. Hrfrrrnrrx arc to pnfjrs R«-Ki«tr»tlon imee Formt; Statnte^: Trudcmark Rul»«« of Patent Office)— I out imu'd. j;rniitf.l only f«>r cIush in wliicti mnrk \f> nrtually used, 537, n. 12. prantrd only to valid trndi-marks, .">.'1'2, n. 1. in color, '2S7. invalid fcdrral ntatntos. ;17S. is rocord of adoption of tradcinark. 384. jnriwliction of conprcss conccrninj;. :J7H. limits rcffistrant to matter claimed, 38rt. mode of application must be stated. 538, n. 15. must he pleaded. 415. no institution of siiit for trademark infringement without, under English act. 378. not a grant of right or privilege. 3S5. not a means of acquiring trademark. 1!>, 05. 53!t, n. 16. not conclusive as to right to trademark, 540, n. 35. not granted for use on "fancy goixls," 537, »i. 12. of cor[»orate names, 542, n. 25. of difendant's mark, not a defense, 440. of geographical words, .')(J2. of mark eonunon to trade, 54(5, n. 35. of mark of volunUiry association of manufacturers, refused, 507, 533. of name of celebrity, 274, n. 80. of name of or mark for patented article, refused. 533. of partnersJiip mark, grantinl only on application of partner, .540, tiote. of i)roper name dot's not create trademark right, 06. of trademark, does not cure ohjiftioii of its being colorable imita- tion of another mark, 385. only prima facie evidence of ownership, 38s, 541, n. 24. refused name of patented article, 1)0. refus«fl picture and word not true alternatives, 540, n. 22. refuH* d proper and geographical names joined, 542, n. 25. remedien conferred by, 07. , right to, not concluded by registrability in foreign country. .535, n. C. ftatc (sec statutes of the several states), 00. the valid federal statutcH (see .Acts of 1881 and 1!»05, in .Appendix). under Act of lH7'( fprrnrcH arc to pngrs. RrKl«tratIon (mee Tornm; Stntntca; Trndrmark Rnloa of Patent Office) -Coiitimi.d. iiiuliT Kii^'isli Htutntf ciiMstnictivf ii^cr of Irudciiiark, (i.'t. use of fuc -siinilcH, in, .'»;JS, .')4!t. v«Ii(Iity of prcHfiit /iMh-ral «tiitiitc, .'{71'. value of, .'{H4, "):M, n. 7. wlifti refused, fee not refunded. .">."J'I. »i. 17. ReisBue of Patent — cxleiids lite i>f fiiidenuiik ii|>|(Iii.d tn [liitciiti'd article. !•:{. Relative Protection Given by Patents and Trademarki, 16. Relief- ill et|uity 4.")1. Religions Order— ♦••adeiiKirks of, 69. "Remington," tiO, n. 24. Removal of Bnsiness*- notice of, as unfair competition, .312. to plaintilT'g locality, as proof of fraud. .312. Renewal Privilege Under Act of 1905, 21, 576. Repair Parts, 3I.>. sale of, under name of manufacturer of machine to be repaired, 358. Replacement — of parts of trademarkcd articles, 315. Republication — when ordered, 567. Res Adjndicata— effect of, 488. how proven, 488. in opposition proceedings, 570. none created by decision of court of foreij^ country, 449. Rescission — of contract for sale of goodwill, for vendor's fraud, 250. Resemblance- inspection by court as test of. 300. 342. may establish right to injunction. 204. need not be such as to deceive purchasers having opportunity of comparison, 342. unnecessary, 292. 1014 INDEX. Jiffrrcncro arc to paget ReatMiirniitB — iwitni'^ i>f |irotoft«'iI. H.V4. RratrKint of Trade — comlniuit ion in, 2'A'>. contract rclntinj: to trade wcrct is not in. 2')3. in salo of ;foot> niiiy not l>r ini|H>>.»', 128. "Robert's Parabola Gold-Burnished Sharps," 330. "RoRer Williams" (elotlil. 12S, 170. "Rogers," .i.W. "Rose" (vanilla extract). 109. "Rosebud" (. "Royal" (liiikin^' powder), 128. "Royal Blue" (earp«'t swjH-por) , 128. "Roy Watch Case Co.," :V.U). Royalties on Articles Made by Secret Proceis, 264. "R. P. Hall." as Trademark. 173. "Rnbbcrset" ( l.niHhes) , 110, 330. "Ruberoid" nx.flnff), 110, 330. "Rye and Rock" (liquor), 110. INDKX. 1011 References are I'o pagct. 8 "Safety" (powder), 110. "Saeaf oam," rM. Sale— (tf businesa, conveys tradcinaiks used tlicrcin, 27. t)f tradi'inarks, 27. Sales— dimiinitioii of. us evidence of daniaRC, 423. evidence of extent of, 470. exfi'HHive, dws not destroy trademark, 11)1. Saloon — •.'oodwill of, 222. "Sanitary" (filter), 110. "Sanita.," 14.}, 3.30. "Sapollo" (scourin<; Urick), 128, 330. "Saponifler" ( coiictiitrated lye), 128. "Sappota Tolu," .534. "Sarsaparilla and Iron" 110. "Satinine" (starcli and soap), 110. "Satin Polish" (l>oots and shoes), 110, "Satin Skin," 336. "Sawyer's Crystal Blue and Safety Box," 330. "S. B.," 334. "Schiedam Schnapps," 110. Scienter, 293. Scope^ comparative, of trademarks and tradenames, 14. Scotland — trademark riplils of alien in. ftO. t Search Warrants — under Act of 1876. 531, n. 1. under local statutes (see statutes of the several states). 1016 INDF.X. Rrfcrrnrin arr to pages. Srcondarjr McanlnR. I'"' d.-niietl. 100. iloi'trino applinl ti> tiale for infringement, 403. Shape — infriii;.'. "Slate Rooflnp" (paint), 120. "Sliced Animals" (toys), 129. "Snowflake" (crackers), 111. "Social Register" (directory), 129, 335. "Sole Manufacturer"— as ]);\r to relief, 78. "Sole Proprietor" — use of words enjoined, 401. Solicitation— of former customers. 3.59. "Somatose" (meat extract). Ill, 143. South Carolina Statutes, 701 ; form, 794. South Dakota Statutes, 70.") ; form, SOO. "Southern Company, St. LiOui8,"33l. "Sorosis,"331. "Spearmint" (<.aim). 111. Specific Performance — of contract for sale of goodwill. 225. 1018 INDKX. Referencm arc to paget. Specimen*— iiivi'8ti^Htioii. .'>.")2, nns. "Splendid" < lloiir^. 111. "StandRrd A" (tipirs), 111. StAfce Line — ^•IHMlwill of, 2-22. "Star" (tol.ncco. vlv.). Ill, 129. "Stnrk." 331. State Penal Laws, Ml. State ReKistration— ail\ .llitii;jf> of. .■('.I.'i. State Statutes (see Statutes. State). Statute o£ Frauds — iij:r<'<'m32, action: by commispioiier on application (scv, 3i, .V40 for damajifs (sees. 7. It), rA't. .")46. for an injunction (sec. 7), M't. jurisdiction of I'nited States courts in an (sec. 7), 545. when liarre|ilicant : citi/ens)ii|i (»f. to he recited (sec. 1), 532. domicile of. to Ix- recited (sec. 1), 532. name of, not rejjistrahle (ftec. 3), 540. name of, to he specified in the application (s«h'. 1), 532. statement of. to recite what (sec. 1), .">32. application: action on same hy tlio commissi(mer (se<\ 3i. .'i40. conflicting; with another (sec. 31, 540. lenjrtli of time of use of mark, to lie recitttl in (sec. 1), 532. muHt 1m- accomfianied by a written declaration (8«>c. 2), 540. miiHt recite what (»ec. 1), 532. time of receipt of, to Ik- ncorded (sec. 3), 540. INDKX. 1019 1\< fi rrurcH arc In pages. Statntcs, Federal: Art of Mnrch 3. 1R81 ( out itniid. article: if injurious, an action Idr iiiiina;.'c^ or iiijiiiict ion in liarrcd (Hfc. 8), .")4»i. not inamifacturcil in tliis c(iiititty, term nf rc;»iHtratioii for (sec. .■)) , .>4."i. nwHifjiuncnt, coniniissioiicr to iinscrilic furins ami rules for ^hpo. 1-2), .-)47. bars: to an action for (lamajjes or injunction (sees. H, 11 i, 7i4(\, r)47. to rej,'istration (sees. 1, 2, .3), 'ui2, r)40. business, if uniawfiij. hars an action for (laina;,'eH or injunction. (.s. certificates of re32. commerce with foreign nations or Indian tribes, use of trademark in, necessary to registration (.sees. 1, 2, 3), 532, 540. commissioner: action on a|)pIication (sec. 3), 540. to decide |)resuniptive lawfulnes.s of claim (sec. 3), .'V40. to prescribe regulations for registration (sec. 1), 532. to prescribe rules and forms for assignments and transfers, (sec 12), 547. to sign certificates of registration (sec. 4), 544. common law and equitable rights: not abridged by expiration of term of certificate (st^c. 11), 547. not al)ridged by statute (sec. 10). 547. compensation, registrant aggrieved may recover (sec. 7), 545. conflicting applications (sec. 3). 540. convention with a foreign power as conferring the right to register (sec. 3), 540. confusion of the public mind by similarity of marks bars registra- tion (sec. 3) , 540. copies: of printed specifications to be kept on record (sec. 4), 544, under oflicial seal to be evidence (sec. 4). .)44. copying and using registered trademark, damages for (sec. 7), 545. counterfeiting, damages for (sec. 7), 545. 1020 INDKX. Ri fm ivt s nrr to pa(jr». StMtvtra. Federal: Act of March 3, 1881-(tiiitiiuii'd. cuurtH of iH|iiity. iirnotiiv to !>«• followol in olVu r iutimi <>n vonllii't- iiifj iipplirutioDH ( !*iv. 3). .">4(>. otnirts of tlu' I'nitrd Statt't*. juriiulictiun of (wo. 7), r>4.'). (inmiipi'H : iioti«)ii fi>r. \\ lull liHiri4«l. for iiflixin^r friuitliilcnt tnulcumrk to nuToluindiso (s<'c. 7), •"•4"). for falM" or frauiliiN-iit rrjii^triition ( mr. !M , ")46. for wronjifiil us4> of rt;.'istfrfd trudcmiirk (see. 7), .">4.'i. dt-crit of tlio jMililic: iictioii to dtfcihl trailcm;irk >o tix-d. not muiiitaiinililf (sit. 8), .'>4rt. Ity .'•imilaritits in iimrk>, Imrs rc'ristrutioii (sch^b. 2, 3), 540. declaration : niii^t l>f in writing: (sec. 2), 540. must lie vt'rilit'd by whom (si'C. 2), r»40. must contain wlint (si-c. 2), r)40. wlien false or frau32. of the mark re«juired (.sec. 1). 532. domicile of applicant must be recited in the application (sec. 1), 532. duration of certificate (sec. 5), 545. tijuitiible rights not affected by statute, or expiration of term (sees. 10. 11). .-)47. equity: aggrieved registrant may resort to (sec. 7), 543. courts of, practice followed in interference cases (see. 3), 540. evidence: copies under seal to be received as (sec. 4), .'>44. of ownership, registraticui to be prima facie (sec, 7), 545. of registry (sec. 4), 544. expiration of term of certificate does n»)t abridge common-law or •Hpiitable rights (sec. 11), 547. fac Himilrs : of trademarks to be filed (sec. 1), 532. pre8<>nted, must truly represent the mark (sec. 2), 540. false registrati')n, damages for (sec. fl), 54(J. fees: for regihtry, and how |)ayal)le (sec. 1), 5,'*2. formerly [laid with intent to jirocurc registratifui (sec. 0), 545. foreign countries, residents of may register wlien (sees. 1, 3), 532, 540. iNi)i:x. 1021 UifirrntcH arc to pagrs. Statutes, Federal: Act of March 3, 1881— roritimK-*!. Iciii ij:ii lint inns or lixliaii tiilun, triiilcniiirkK UHcd iii iDmriiiTcf with, aloiij; ii'j.'istriil)lc («t'CM. 1, 2, ;< I , ."lU'i, ."i4(>. fdifi;,'!! powtT coiivciit ion witli, uh c-«mfcrriiiK rij^lit of ic^'i->tration (s.'c. :»). •'►•lo. fdiincr rijilits mid rciiwiliis |>rrHrivf(| ( src. Kh , .')47. fonriH for nssinimu-ntK ti» ln' pn-Hcrilu'd liy {•oinmiHHioucr (»«•. 12). r)47. fraud in olttaiiiiii;,' rfj.'istration barH uii ac-tioii (m'c. H), .)4(J. fraudulent : diTlaration and rf;;istration, dania^'ps for (hi'c. 9), ri4(J. trademark, dainafifs for adixinf^ same to niprtdtandist! (wc. 7), r)4r.. jroodn, particular (i(S(ri|)tinn of Hame, to lie rccitrd (hcc. 1), ■>32. identity witli olinr tradcniiiiks. liars re^^istration wlien (necs. 2, 3), 540. imitation of re<,'istered tradenuirk. penalty for (see. 7), ■")4.'>. Tiiilian trihcs or foreijrn nations, tradeinarka used in commerce with, alone re;,'istral.le (sees. 1, 2, 3), 532, 540. infringement, remedy fur (sec. 7), 545. injunction : action for, when liarritl (sec. 8). 546. ajrainst the wrongful use of a rej^istered trademark (see. 7), 545. interference practice, to follow the rules of Inited States courts of equity (sec. 3) , 540. issue of certificates of registration (sec. 4). 544. jurisdiction, original and apjiellate. of rnited States co\irts (sec. 7), 545. lawfulness of claim to trademark to he decided hy c(mimissioner (sec. 3), 540. length of time of use of mark to lie recited ( sec. 1 ) , 532. location of apjilicant to he specified (sec. 1), 532. manufacture of articles abroad, registration for (sec. 5), 545. merchandise, class of to he recited (sec. 1), 532. mistake or confusion in the public mind, caused by similarity of trademarks, bars registration (sec. 31, 540. mode of allixing, to he recited (sec. 1), 532. name of applicant : not registrable (sec. 3), 540. to be specified in the application (sec. 1), 532. oath to declaration, how and by whom made (sec. 2), 540. ownership, registration to he iiritna facie evidence of (sec. 7), 545. pemilty : for false or fraudulent registration (sec. 0), 546. for imitation of trademark (sec. 7), 545. printed copies of specification to be kept of record (sec. 4), 544. receipt of application, time of to be rworded (sec. 3), 540. 10*J2 INDEX. Ii> fi n III I s lire to pagrit. Statute*. Federal: Act of March 3, 1881- ( ontinucd. rwordin^; : of limo of rcoript of np|)liciition (r.v. ;i > , .'.4(1. vi tiHiicftTs of rij^lit oi uKf (wo. 12), 547. rworiln «>f trH«l»'murk!«. stiitoiiu-nts. tloolarationi.. I'to., to 1»f kepi (800. 41. ."»44. registration : HB H condition proctnlont to roj^istrution uliroi'd (s..v l.l.. .'>4S. niitliori/oil whon (sec. 1). .'>32. bars to ( soos. 1. 2. 3), .'>32. .')40. by rosidents of foroijin oountries ( seca. 1. 3). .'>32, .'i4n. oortificatos of. Iiow and wlion issued (sees. 4. 13), .')44, .'>48. certificatoh of uso of sumo in courts as ovidonco {«^ec. 4), r>44. expiration of t.rni of. dors not abridge common law or oqnitablo rijjhts (sec. Ill, .")47. foo for (sees. 1. 6). ")32, .i4.'i. liow ofToctod (soc. 1), .')32. marks arc registraiilo (sec. .")), .")40. obtained l»y false or fraudulont roprosontations. damages for (sec. fl), .")46. records of. to hi' kept (soc. 4), .")44. renewal of, can be made whon (soo. .")). .">4;"). restricted to marks used in foreign or In.lian commcroo (sees. 1, 2. 3), r>.32, .540. right to, as affocted by citi/onship of applicant (soc. 1), 532. right to. as conferred by treaty convention, or declaration with a foreign power ( sec. 3 ) , 540. right of action secured thereby (sec. 7), 545. rules for. to be prescribed by the commissioner (sec. 1). 532. to be prima facie evidence of ownership (soc. 7), .545. use in foreign and Indian commerce a prerequisite to (sees. 1. 2. 3 ) , ,532, .540. regulations and rules to be i>rescribed by the commissioner (sees. 1. 12), .532, .547. remedy for infringement (soc. 7), 545. renewal of registration (see. 5), 545. reproduction and use of registered tradeniark. jMniilty for (sec. 7), .54.5. resemblance to other marks must b«' avoided (sees. 2. 3). .540. restrictions: on actions for damages or an injunction (sec. Si. .540. on actions for infringement (sees. 8. Ill, ''jn. 547. on registration (swh. 1, 2, 3), .532. .540. right to UHo t!ie mark must Udong exclusively to the apiilicint (sec. 2», 540. INDKX. 102:3 IfrfrrrnrtH nn l<> finprK. StatntoB, Federal: Act of March 3, 1881 ( oiitiiitK <]. ii<,'litH ut cominoii law and t'ljiiity ii«)t uliri(lj{wl: by i'xj>irati(iii of tin- tmii of r('>{iHtiati(Hi (m-v, II), .Vt7. hy tlic <'inutiin-Mt of tin- htututi- (nor. 10). .")47. nilcH and ifmihitions, tn lie prcHcrilu'd liv tlic commiwHioncr (men. 11, 12), .")47. Himilaiity <<• otlicr marks Wars rcfiistratioii, \vli«ii (seen. 1. 12), .")32, r)47. Bpecifications, |)rintc>d ropifs of. to \h- k»pl of rt-eurd (hcc. 4), .V44. Ktatement of ai)plicant: to rt'citc wliat (sec. 1). .');J2. rwoidinj; of (wt'c. 4), 544. terms of rcjjistration: duration of (sec. .">), 545. expiration of, does not al)ri(I<;<' common-law or ('(juitahle riglita (sec. 10). 547. limitation of (sec. 5), 545. renewal of ( sec. 5 ) , 545. time of receipt of application to l)e recorded (sec. 3), 540. of use to he recited (sec. 1). 532. transfers of tlu- ri<.'ht of use, how re^xulated (sec. 12). 547. treasury departnu-nt, dei>osit of trad«Mnark in, 00!). treaties as conferrinj; the ri<,'ht of re;L;istration (sec. 3), 540. United States: citizens of. may ohtain ref ISHI (?.cii*. It, 24), 578, ,'.S-1. appmlH: fo<*« for (t»»'OH. S. 1-lt. .'>7.'J. .')7S. to till" ooinmisHioiH'r of putfiits (m'ch. 7. >>. l-'Ji. 'u*K -u'-i, "Jd. to tln' court of a|)|u'ulH of tlie Distrii-t of Coluinliia ( »tf. i>), 574. patfiit |irno1lato jurisdiction i>f Initcd Statos coiirtH ( u-c. 17), 581. applicant : "ap|)licanth"' defined (m'c. 2!> ) , 5Sl5. iMti/cnsliip of, to he recitwl (see. 1), 54!>. domicile of, to he recited (sec. 1), 54H. loi-ation of, t«» Ik' recited (sec. 1). 549. name of. to he recited (sw. 1), 5411. statement of. to reciti- what (.hcc. It. .">4!l. who may apply for re;; i strut ion (sec. li, 540. applications: action on s;»me hy tlie cominissioner (sec. fi ) , 5fi5. contlictin^ (.sec. 7), 57*^. date of. in foreijin country must he stated when (sec. 2). 554. e.xamination of (sec. 6), 505. fees on filin;; (sees. 1, 14), 54!t, 57S. filed under the Act of 1S81 may l>e amended (sees. 14. 24). .578, 584. length of time of use of mark to he recited in (sec. 1), .549. may he assigned (sec. 10 1, 574. must he addressed to tlie commissioner of patents (sec. 1), 549. must be accomj»anied hy a drawing (sec. 1). 540. must he aceonri)anied hy a written declaration (sec. 2). 554. must he accomi>anied hy specimens of the trademark (sec. 1), .549. must he filed in the patent odice (sec. 1), 54!l. must he in writing (sec. 1), 549. must he signed hy the applicant (sec. 1), 540. mUHt recite what (sec. 1). 549. must state how trademark is applietl or alhxed to the goods ( sec. 1 ) , 549. article, if injurious, an action for daiiia;.'es or injiinetion is harred (sec. 21). .583. assignments: applications for registration may he assigned (sec. 10), 574. ftH'H for recording (sec. 10), 574. nuist he acknowledged according to laws of country or state in wlii'-)i I'Venitcd ( KTc. 10 1, 574. INDKJC. lO'J.'j llrfirrniiH nil to pngrit. Statntea, Federal: Act of Febrnary 20, 1005 ( out iniinl. aHHi|riiiiii-iitH: — ciintiiiiird. must til' ill (•oiiinction with tlic ^'oddwili ^,[ tin- iiiihiiioHH (wc. 10), 574. miiHt Im.' ill wiiliiij,' (sec. 10), r>74. nford of assi^'iiiiiciits to !)«• ki-pt in the patent oflTirc (hoc. 10), 574. shall he void uiiIuhh recorded in the patent ofl'ice within three months (sec. 10), .'>74. trademarks may be assi;;iie(l (.sec. 10), TuA. bars: to action for ilama^'es or injunction (hccs. 21, 2H). r)H3. .'i8fi. to registration (sees. 1, 2, 4. ")), r>4i>, r>.")4, .')."(6. business, if iinlawful, bars an action for dama^ics or injunction (sec. 21), .-)H:}. cancellation, proceeding's for (sees. ];{. 22). .")7»t. .)S;{. certificates of rej^istrution : in case of forci;;n registration, shall cease when the forei;,'n regis- tration expires (sec. 12), .')7<». issued under the Act of 1881. may he renewed under the Act of February 20, I'tOo (sec. 12), .570. issued under the Act of 1S8I. shall remain in force (sees. 12, 30), 576, 587. may be cancelled (sees. 13, 22), 576. .583. may be issued to the assignee (sec. 11), 575. may be renewed (sec. 12), 576. shall bear the seal of the patent office (sec. 11), 575. shall be signed by the commissioner of jiatents (sec. 11), 575. shall not be issued to foreign applicants until they have obtained registration in country of residence (sec. 4), 556. shall remain in force not more than 20 years (sec. 12), 576. shall state date of application (sec. 11), 575. use of copies of in court as evidence (sec. 11). 575. citizenship: as afl"ecting riglit to register (sec. 1). .540. of applicant to he recited (sec. 1). .540. class of merchandise to be recited in application (sw. 1). .540. coats of arms not registrable (sec. 5), 5.56. commerce : between states (sec. 1). 540. ♦ foreign applit-ants need not state that the trademark has been use:l in commerce with the United States or among the states thereof (sec. 2), 554. with foreign nations (sec. 1), 549. with Indian tribes (sec. 1), 540. commissioner: action on application (soc. 6), 565. 1026 INDEX. Ucfrrrnrcs arc in pngrs. StatntrB. FrdcrRi: Act of February 20. 1 905 - ( '.mt itim d. ruminiKhioniT : — i-«>ii tinned. iip|»ral« to (»!•(•. 8), 'u'A. jiiriMlirtion «>f. t«) runr«'l ri'j;i8trationH {m'c>*. l.'J. 22), .*)7fl, 583. iiKHV rrfiis*' to rt'^isttT iiitrrfcrinj; iiiiiikH, wlu-n (hit. 7), ."iTO. to );iHtration (m-c. Ill, '»7."». ooniMionlaw and t'(initahlc ri^rlitn not iihridgcd hy statute (soc. 2;{ ) , ronlliitinj; aiiplications (s«'('. 7), .")70. confnsion of tin- |iul>Iir mind liy similarity of marks har.n ri>;irttration ( spc. r> ) . .').")6. constitutionality of. 37fl. contempt, action for violating,' injunction (sec. 20), .')82. convention with a foreign |K)\ver as conferrin;j tlip ri>;lit to register (sec.»i. 1, 4>. .■)4!), .■>.")»!. copies: of actiuil tradrmitrk or fnc-simihs rt(jnir«il from iijiplicant (sec. 1), r>4!t. of printed specifications to he kept of record ( -.cc. 11). .">7.'), of records of injunction procee(liii<;s furiii>het| to cnurts ai>plying for same (sec. 20), 582. of puhlications, i)rice8 (sec. 14), 578, of records under official seal to be evidence (sec. 11), .')75. copyinp and u.-^inji registered trademarks: damages for (sees. 1(5, 10), 570, 581. restraint of (sec. 10), 581. counterfeiting, damages for (sec. 18), 570. courts of the United States, jurisdiction of (sees. 10. 17, IS, 10), 570, "»81. damages: action for. wlicn l)arred ( s.k-s. 21. 28), 583. 58(1. for allixing fraudulent trademark to merchandise (sec. Ifi), 570. for false or fraiidulent registration (sec. 25), 585. for wrongful use of registered trademarks (scvs. 1(1. 10), 570. 581. may la- increased (sees. 10, 10), 570, 581. deceit of the public: action to defend trademark used in, not maiiitaiiialde (see. 21), 583. by similarity in marks, bars registration (sec. 5), 550. deceptive tradetnarks. action under, may not be brought (sec. 21), 583. declaration : may be verifiem (sec. 2l, 554. INDIX-. 101'7 /'i fi 11 iirrs (IK In jKiffis. Statutes, Frderal: Art of Febmnry 20, 1905- ( .prilimi.4. , f(»r forci;;!! iipplicantH (hcc. 2). ")."»4. iiiidir tciivoHr |>r()vi^(i (hcr. .'»), fjoO. wliiii, falHf <»r fruiKluli'iit. (Iiuiiii^m'h for (we. 2.">). .'.8.'). (IcflTiitioriH of "aflixcd," "ait|ilicaht," "owner," "porHon," "Tenintuint," "Htat«'8." "trademark," "Triited State»" (hoc. 2»), 5S0. description : niiiht truly deherihe the mark (see. 2), ').'>4. of tile ^'oods re(|uired (see. 1), ."»4!». of till- mark reipiired (sec. 1), .')4!». deseriptive trademarks, not re;;istral)lc {hi'C. .')), .l.^C. ilestriietion of infrinj^in;,' trademarks (sec. 20). i582, domicile of applicant must be recited in the ai)plication (sec. 1), .")4!». drawing of the trademark required (see. 1), 540. duration of the certificate of registration (sec 12). .")7(!. eipiity, aggrieved parties may resort to (sees. 17, 1!», 22, 2;j), r>81, .■)S.S. .■)S4. evidence: , copies under seal to be received as (see. 11), .'i?;). of ownersliip, registration to be prima facie (sec. 16), 570. of registry (sec. 11), TuTy. examination of applications: ajjplicant to be notified of the result of (sec. fil, ;>65. commissioner of patents to cause (sec. 6), 56.). fac-s^imilrs of trademarks, when to be filed (sec. 1), 549. false registration, damages for (sec. 25). 585. fees: additional fee not required for apj.licatioiis pending at the date of passage of this act (sec. 14), 578. for cO|)ies (sec. 14). 578. for recording assignments (sec. 14), 578. for registration or renewals (sees. 1, 14), 54f). if paid by mistake may be refunded (sec. 15), 57fl. on a{)i)eal to the commissioner of patents (sees. 8, 14), 573, 578. on filing notice of opposition (sec. 14), 578. flags or coats of arms not registrable (see. 5), 556. foreigners: entitled to date of application in colintry of residence in certain cases (sec. 4). 55ri\ ilrj^cH to tin- citi- /oils t)f till' I'nilril States ( wc. 4 I, 'I'M. net-*! not statr that mark lian Ihimi uhciI in rommorcH' witli tli" I'nitc'd Stat«'s or anion^ the HtatoB tliert*of (nee. 2), 554. nofiros for, may he wrvod on their representatives in the I'nited States ( !M*c. ."J). 555. when entitled tt) rej;ister (si'es. 1, 2, 4). 54!», 5.VI, 55(J. foreign nations, rejiistration of tra,'istration. ilamaf,'es for (sec. 25), 585. trademarks, damages for allixing same to merchandise (sec. 16). 57ft. poographical terms, not ropiatrable (sec. 5). .5.56. gooils, particular descri|»tion of, to be recited (sec. 1), .54ft. identity with other trademarks bars registration when (sec. 5), 5.56. imitation of registered trademarks, penalty for (sees. 16, 1ft), 57ft, 581. immoral or scandalous matter not registrable (sec. 5), 5.56. importation of articles of merchandise bearing unlawful trademarks ])rohibited (sec. 27), 585. Indian tribes, registration of trademarks used in commerce with (sit. 1 ). 54'.). infringement. remer<» liiijjh in <-(|iiity ( m-c 22), .-.h:j. iHHUc of (■.•rtiflcut.'H <.f r.KiKtration (wh-h. «, 11), :>«.'), .'.Tr). to llSHijJIll'I'K ( K«'C. 11), .")".">. jurisdiction : of tlif coMinii-sioncr of |iatrntK ( spck. 8, 13), 'u'-i, ')7fi. of tin- . "owiut" ilt'fiiu'd ( si'c. 211), .">Sr>. o\vm'rslii|i, n "■i^tratiini to In- prinni f4!), .'>.»0. as fonftrred by tri-aty, or coiivciition witli a foreign i)0\vpr, or by tlu' laws of a foreign country (sees. 1, 4), r)40, f)")*!. rules for. to be i>rescribe(l l)y the eornniissioiier (see. 2^0, ">H."). to be prima facie evidence of ownersliip (sec. KS ) , .">7i'. U8C in foreign or Indian or interstate commerce, a |»rere. rcfjulations and rules to be prescribed by the commissioner (sec. 28), 585. remedies for infrinj^'ements (sees. 16, If), 20. 2.3). 570. 581, .582, 584. renewal of certificate of registration (sec. 12), 576. must be made not more tlian six months prior to expiration (sec. 12), 576. who may request (sec. 12), 578. ra|)resentatives in the United States, foreign applicants must desig- nate (sec. 3), 555. reproduction and use of registered trademarks, penalty for (sees. 10, 10, 20), 570, 581, 582. resemblances to other marks must be avoided (sec. 5), 556. residence of applicants required (sec. 1), 540. restrictions: on actions for damages or an injunction (sees. 21, 28), 583, 586. on actions for infringement (sees. 21, 28), 583, 586. on registration (sec. 5), 556. review by commissioner of adverse decision (sec. 9), 574. right to use the trademark must belong exclusively to the applicant (sec. 2), 554. rights at common law or equity not abridged (sec. 23), 584. rules and regulations to be prescribed by the commissioner (sec. 26), 585. scandalous or immoral matter not registrable (sec. 5), 556. schedule of fees (sec. 14), 578. similarity to other trademarks, bars registration when (sec. 5), 5.56. specifications, printed copies of. to be kept of record (sec. 11), 575. specimens of the trademark r<'(iuired (sec. 1), 540. statement of applicant: to recite wliat (sec. 1). 549. recording of (sec. 11), 575. "states," defined (sec. 29), 586. states, registration of trademarks used in commerce between (sec. 1), 549. 1032 INDEI. llvfircncrn an Id pmjis. Stntutra, Federal: Act of Fcbrnary 20. 1905 — Continued. ti'ii years' use pricir to the |iassaj:c of tliis net jHTmits registration of ef'rtaiii marks ( neo. .')), ."irifl. term of registration: duration of (see. 121, ."i7o rcoitwl (sec. 1), .V40, "trademark" definwl (sec. 21)). r>8fl. tradennirks to lie puldisliod in Oflicial Gazette (sec. fi). .Irt.'). transfers of tlie riglit of use. liow regiilated (see. 10). r>74. tn-asury department, deposit of trademark in (s<'c. 27), .">8.'). tri-aties, as conferring tlie riglit of registration (sees. 1, 4), .">4fl, r)56. I'nitcd States: citizens of, may obtain registration, when (sec. 1), r)4fl. courts of, to have jurisdiction, wlien (sees. 16, 17. 18, 19), 571', 381. definition of the term "United States" as used in this act (sec. 211). r)86. unlawful business, use of trademarks in, bars an action (sec. 21), W.i. use: if in an unlawful business, bars an action (sec. 21), .">8.3. if wrongful, common-law and iMiuitabie rights unimpaire^l (sec. 23). .")84. length of time of, to be recited (sec. 1), ")40. mode of, to be recited (sec. 1), 54!). right of, nuist be exclusive witli the applicant (sec. 2), .').')4. right of, transfers (>f (sec. 10). .'V74. . unlawful, of trademarks, damages or injunctions (sees. Ifi. 1!», 20), .')7n, ryS\, 582. verification of declaration, how and liy whom nuide (sec. 2). 554. writ of ccrtmran, may be granted by the Supreme Court of the United States (sec. 18). .■)S1. Statntes, Federal: Prints and Labels— (Act of 1874)— art, works of, not registrable (sec. 3 i . 513. commissioner: 51,"?. juris14. law of copyri^'lit, ai)i>licatioii of to n-giMtry of i>riiit» uuJ lulit'ltt (B«'C. 3), 514. Patent OfTicc nileR, f)!?. . ])ictorinl illuHtratioiis, wluii rcfiistialjlo (mc, 3), r>ir>. I)riiit, till' word constriicd as mi-anirij,' what (sec. 3), f)]."*. record of ro<,'istration, copy of. fee for (sec. 3), 522. rej,'istration, provisioMs as to (sec. 3), 51!). works of art, not registrable (sec. 3), 516. Statntea, Federal — Section 344!», K. S. U. S., 408. Statutes, State- Alabama, (520. Alaska, 620. Arizona, 620. Arkansas, 621. California, 19, n. 40, 628. Colorado, 638. Connecticut, 643. Delaware, 64!). Florida, 6.53. Georgia, 657. Idaho, 661. Illinois, 664. Indiana, 669. Iowa, 674. Kansas, 677. Kentucky, 679. Louisiana, 679. Maine, 683. Maryland, 686. Massachusetts, 689. Michigan, 6!)6. Minnesota, 700. Mississippi, 709. Missouri, 710. Montana, 720. Nebraska, 721. Nevada, 723. New Hampshire, 724. New Jersey, 727. New Mexico, 737. New York, 738. * 1034 "NDl-X. Krfrrcncvs arc to piUjcs. Stntiitra, State— lont inu«'. IVnnBylvania. 7S'2. IUkxIo Islaiul. 7S6. South I'aTolina. 7'.'1. South Dakota. 705. Tonne«80<>, 801. Texas. 80"». I'tah. 807. Vermont. SliO. Vir^'inia, H13. \Vasliin}!ton. 817. West Virj.;iiiin, 8*22. .Wisconsin, 82t5. Wyon>in{r, 820. "Steel Shod" ( slices ^ 111. "Steinway." .{iil. "Stephen*," '-V-U. "SterlinB" (air). 120. "Stillman Mills." 213. "St. Jamei" ( iicwspaiuT, •■tc.) , 130. "Stock BeloiiKlnK to the Partnership"— iiH-hnlo ;; luiH. 2'27. •Stock in Trade and Effects" — ^r,„„l\\ill iKit iii.liKlfd ill. 227. Stock Quotations— as proiM-rty, 366. contracts for, 300. protection of, 306. "StoRa Kip" (l)0(>ts), 111. "Stone Ales" — ■ su-c, lt'.2. »i. 72. "Strainht Cut" (cij^arcttes) , 111. Strncture — iimtiitioii ».f. 202. "Stuart's Dyspepsia Tablets." 'l.tl. INDEX. 1035 Itifirrturs nrc to pages, Sabniiaaion— liy ()tlni> as ••vidcncf of ri>,'lit (o liHi(l coHtH, 4():{, 404, 4(1."., 4;{H, 4!I2. imiHt lie coiiiploto, 4!n, 402. iiiHV !>(• iiuulc at any Htaj;<' of the case, 491. Subpoena Dnoes Tecnm— for (lra\viii;;s ciiforcod ngainut ol)jcction tlii-y relate to secret pro- cess. 263. "Substitution" — (IcCnic.l. .'nT. "Sncceiior to" — riglit of |>iii(lias< r of husinoss to advertise as, 230. SugBestiveness — does not invalidate, '.»."., 1t(i, l!t4, 195. Snits in Eqnity— for invasion of goodwill, 24.'). generally, 424. "Sunlight" (soap). 1.30, .331. Supreme Court (U. S.)— appeals to nndei Act ino.l, ."iSl. certiorari from, under Act* 1 !•()"), 581. Surname — A as trademark. 17.3. registrable under Act of 1881, 564. "Svenska Snusmaganiset," 112. "Swan," 3.31. "Svran Dow^n" (eoinplexion powder). 130. "Sweet Caporal" (cigarettes), 130. "Sweet Liotos" (tobacco), 112. "Sweet Opoponaz of Mexico" (perfume), 130. "Swing" (scythe-sockets), 112. Symbol — as trademark. 4, ». 3, 158. may be infringed by, or infringe, a word, 332. Syphons — acts to ]irotect (see statutes of the several states). "Syrup of Figs" (medicinal prejiaration ) , 149. "Syrup of Red Spruce Gum" (medicine), 130. Systems of Licensing, 155. ^^'^6 INDKX. Rcfrrcnrts arr tit pages, T "Taffy Toln" (cliewinp pum) , 112. as trademarks, 2S1, 3B3. Tailor— f,'tHMiwill of, 222. "Tamar Indien" (lozoiigi's) , 130, 144. "Ta«tcle««" ((lni. 112. Taxation of Good-\Vill, 224J. Taxation of Trade Secreta, "263. Taxation of Trademarks, GO. Telegraph Blanks— not morcliandis,. within Act of 1881, 546, n. 34. "TelcKraphone," WM]. Telephone Number — a.>; nifdium of unfair compt'^tion. 113. Tendency — to (l<(«'ivc, 118 ti'st of infringe, u-nt, 305. Tennessee Statutes, SOI. Ten-Year Clause — explaincii, .">76. Territorial Limitation— none a- ii|.|.:i.(i to trademarks, 21. Territorial RiRht— ashignuhility, 20, 21t. aHHignnient of refused recordation, 576i, Tests of Infrineement, 10. Texas Statutes, 80."). Theatre- name of. 170. "The Demon." 323. "The Good ThiuKs of Life" (periodieal), 130. INDKX. 1037 Itrf) rritrrn tire to pagcB. "The Nile" (|>la.vin>; ciirds), l.'JO. TIioinBonian ( incdic-incH) , 112. "Thomaon's GIove-FittinK Corseta," 241. Threata — as unfiiir iiirti|ictit ion, H72. "Tidal Wave" ( toliacco) . I.'IO. Time — as an I'k'int'iit iii unfair lompctition, 180. r<(|uir('(l to create trademark right, 64, n. 10. •♦Time-Keeper" (watolies), 112. Tin Tag- not a trademark, 2S1. fraudulent imitation of, enjoined, 281. Title- book, as trademark, 0.3. former adjudication estahlisliinp, conclusive on application for pre- liminary injunction, 453. of periodical as trademark, 108. of play as trademark, 202. re<;istration only prima faciv evidence of, 441. should he pleaded, 441. "Tipo" (wine), 112, 148. "Tivoli" (beer), 130. "Tod" (watches), 144. "Tonge's," 331. "Toothache Gum," 1 1 2. "Tower Palace" case, 213. Trade Libel, r)3. slander or lihel not actionable in absence of proof of special dam- age, 54. Trademark— ahandoninent of, 210. acijuisititm of, generally. 61, 65, 72. adjectives a.s, 07. alien can not have, as against a citizen making prior adoption in good faith, 68. analogy of to goodwill, 28. article itself is not, 139. as monopoly, 56. assignability of, 27. 1038 INDEX. Pefcrciirfs (!»■<• ^> paijfs. TrRdrmark — ContimnMl. ii'«>i};iumnt l>y implication. :W. Hti<. can only l»o assijjmd with j;o<>titiuti exists, 441. (Icnnci. 4. (Icfin«il by Act of 1 !»().■., .VS(i. (Ic|u>n. iliHtinfiuishrd fron> patents and copyriplits. 17. . function of, defined, 17. imitation of, may he limited or partial, ^I'.K includes the French mart/ue . may be pun-ly fanciful. !).">. nuiy consist of word from ilead language. 143. may indicate mitural prodiict, !M. mav pass by imjilication as incident to realty, 37. method of arranging gcKxls. 142. miss|ielling generic word does not mak«', ".M. ino(|e of aflixing. immaterial, !>, n. <>. must be distinctive, 4. .'i. (J, 7, H, '•'. "■ 4. muHt be exclusive, 7. 20. must Im* nn-aningleHH, HO, n. III. must l»e truthful, 7.'i. muht not be common to the trade, fi!>, 131. names as, 4. INDKX. 1039 h'vfirrtirrs arr to pagcH, Trademark — Contiinic*!. iiifd not iiiduiitc iiiiiniifiutiirf or plticc of iiiunufacturc, 0, n. 5. iiojii- ill iiiiiiH- of patented artici*" aft<»r expiration of patent, 03. no ri;;lit of, in form, si/c or <'olor, I'M), 2H2. no rifjlit of, in m-iesHary name of product, l.'UI. not acipiired by rej;iMtration, !!•. not defined l>_v Aels of 1870 and ISSl, XW. nolr. of lianki'iipt. .'ill. of partnersliip, jianses witli nale of j^oodwill, M. oi varialde sound and pronuneiation, ^4t). on product of secret process, 2((."). packaj^es as, 140. |>«'r|)etual existence of, 21. jiiclures as, SO, 141. printing' ;;eneric word in letters from foreign alphabet iloes not make. it.'). proper names can not constitute, !>4. remotely descriptive word may be, 96. reproduction of. proof of fraudulent intent, 2!t4. reipiisites of valid, 20. ri<;lit aecpiired only by adojitioii an ( 7 ) In general Now matter not permitted in To amendment, form of To applications filed under Act of 1881 Will give sueli applications new serial num- bers and dates of filing To declaration, will not bo permitted To rules, will be published in the Official Gazette To statement, when permitted Appeals: To the Commissioner of Patents To the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Applicant: Foreign, must file certified copy of foreign reg- istration in certain cases May prosecute his own case Should not correspond with office if he has an attorney Applications: Abandoned Are pr«'served in secrecy Conflicting, practice, etc J I)at<' of, in foreign country, must be stated, when 56 57 17 11 I. H l*a:'e8. 1 ■*■ • (' ) r.7 (a (1) 25 4f. 47 4S, 40 50 33 500, 603 591 605 508 598 597 44 599 40 598 44 .'.00 42 .508 41,42 43, 44, 45 .508, 590 41 .508 43 598 20 503 2(! .-)03 35 .506 74 608 41 .508 603 603 .")00 580 588 I 500, 603 503 601 505 INDKX. Trademark Rules of Patent Office- -Continued. 1041 Siitijcct. Illll.H. 38, :w, 40 2<5 Applifntions: — continuod. KxiuniimtioM of Fci- on liliii^i Filed uiidiT Act of ISHl may be Hincnded Will lie jrivcii lu'w hcrial iiumlicrH and dates of filinj,' under Aet of Fel). 20, 11)0.").. . May 1)0 assijrned May include all fioods comprised in a 8in;,'le class upon which trademark is used Suspension of \ 4.') ( />-rf) To contain what, form of Assignments : | Fees for recording | '|' Must be recorded within three months | <>'^ Orders for copies of, must give liber and page | JOi of record Provisions regulating Attendance of applicants in person not necessary Attorneys : Correspondence will be held with Disbarment of In general May not act as notary j Registration of | Stamj) of, not permitted on face of the drawing | Substitution of | Bars to registration I Cancellation, proceedings for ()7 (•)3, G4, 65 1 ' I '' I 11,12 I 13, 14, If) I i 34 ■ I 30(7) I 13] 17, m I 52, 53 I 54, 55 I Certificate of registration: | Date of I Duration of | IssMe of I Issued under Act of 1881, shall remain in force. | ]\Iay be renewed under Act of Feb. 20. 1005. | Description of tlie trademark itself required, when | I (see statute) I 22 ( ?*) | Descriptive marks not registrable I ^^ | Disbarment of attorneys ] ^'^ I Domicile to be recited (see statute) j 22 (6) | 40 50 40, 58 61 61 I'agcB. 597, 508 503, 606 593 503 605 504 59!) 592 60(> 606 606 605 588 588 590 589 596 589 597 589 590, 591 602 598 604 598, 604 605 605 502 591 590 592 1042 INDKX. Tradriiiaik Hulr« of Patrut 0»Hi)ul)l(' o<»rr«'i»|M>iul«inc imt iill\<(l i DrHWill;;: I FuruiHlii'd l>y tlir olliof Mu»t not Im' folded I UcquiHiteA of I Duration of term of rf;;istration Knililcni of frate used in tin- application pa- |M'r8 and aHsij;nnit'nts Krasun-a by applicant or attorney not permitted ... i K.\amination : ApplieantH will he notified of the result of ... ( >f applications (H applications for re<;istration «if tradenuirks previously rcfjisti-red iinder Act of ISHl.... Kxaniiner in char;.'e of trademarks, ori<;inal juris- diction of proceeding's hefore Kxpross charges must he prepaid Fac-aimilc of trademark, when to he tiled Fees: Additional fee not retpiired for ajjplieations pending; at the date of the j)assa;,'e of Act of Pel). 20, V.W'i IIow paid Refunded, when Schedule of Flapj or coats of arms not re;;istrahle Foreij.'ners : Kntitled to date of ai)plication in cciuntry of residence in certain cas«'s Having manufacttiring estal)lishnients within the United States may obtain regi.xtration, when Must designate represi-ntative in United States. Must file certified coi>y of foreign registration unless application is made under section 3 of the Act of May 4. liMlU Must first register in country of residence un- less ap|>lication is made under section .'{ of | the Act of Ma\ J. I'.XMl I :j7 nfl(t5» 3(( r>9 in 2;{, «•>:$ 42 38 38, 3«, 40 20 38 10 22 (e) 2ti 51)3 }, 70, 71 088, (507 72 t;os «J) 00(i 19 noi 27 18 28 17. 18 18, (\'l 688 r,97 r>!>7 t!04 TtOI ."»!)3, «or. .'>»8 r)97 597, 598 593 597 589 593 594 59(1 594 5!)0 ■.90, 00.". indp:x. Trademark Rules of Patent Office — ('(uitinurd. 1043 Subject. ForciniHTrt: — continued. Must givf clut(! of rcgiBtrntioti in foiiiitry "f n-H- idi'nc*' or (latf of application tlii-rcfor un- 1»'H8 application ia made iindcr sct-tion 'A of the Act of May 4, l'MH\ Must rt'sidc in a country alFording Himilar priv- iU'm'a to the citizens of tin- United StateH unless a])pIieation is made under section :{ of the Act of May 4, 190(5 Need not state that mark has l)e«'n used in com- merce witii the I'nited States or among the states tliereof unless application is made under section ;J of tlie Act of May 4, l!l()(i. . Notices for, may be served on their representa- tives in the United State's When entitled to register Foreign nations, registration of trademarks used in commerce with Fraternal society, emblem of. not registrable Cieographical terms not registrable Goods, particular description of, to be recited (see statute ) Goods, to be included in a single registration, must be comprised in a single class Immoral or scandalous matter not registrable May be issui'd to an assignee May be canceled Rene\va\ ot Will not be issued to foreign applicants until they have obtained registration in country of residence, except as provided by section 3 of the Act of May 4, 190G Charges for express, postage, etc., must be prepaid. Citizenship: As afFecting right to register Of applicant to be recited Class ot merchandise to be recited in application... Coats of arms nut registral)le Commerce : Between states Xi 17 17 29 17,18 19 19 19 22(b) 30 19 65 52 60 19 59.5 590 590 .'•}94 590 .591 591 591 592 594 591 60r. 602 005 18,62 .590, 60.=; 10 589 16 .590 22(6) .592 22(6) .592 19 591 591 1044 lND^:x. Trademark Rules of Patent Office— I'oiitiiiucd. Sulijcot. t'omniiTcc: — contimnHl. Foreipn applii-imts need not Htatr that tho tradr- mnrk linn liet-n uwd in commerce with the I nitid StHl4'H or nmonji tlie state thereof, unh'KW appliciitioM is made under section 3 of the Act of May 4, 1!)()(> With foreijjn nations With Indian trilH.'8 CommissiomT of Patents: Appeals to ("ommunieations to Ik' addressed to Petitions to No fee re 17 590 (b) 592 10 589 3 5SS 2 588 8 588 5 588 r. 588 3 588 1 588 9 589 (] 588 4 588 7 588 INI'KX. Trademark Rules of Patent Office — Cuiitinued. 1045 Suhjfct. ItulfH. I'm^fH. ('ourtt'Hy and dccoruni iciinirrd of iiiiplicantH and attorneys Date of (ritilicati' of ri'fjjistrutioii Dt'ot'ptivi! tradfuiurks not rcj,MHtraldc Declaration : In general Alay not 1)(> amended KeHH 598 -.91 590, 595 59« 59(i 595 595 595 59« 58S 591 589, 593 591 598 48 600 48 600 48 600 2, .14 602 40 599 l..-)4 601,602 48 600 49 601 601 601 601 600 600 600 104G iN'nrx. TradrmArk Rnle>B of P«tent Office— iontinuod. Siihjoot. I Ihlh'H. I I'llJJl'W. Int«'rf«TiMci'H: — rontiiniod. | ruliliriition of tnuUninrk iniist Ik* iniuli- in tin- I (Uliiial CHzrtt*' U-fdrc intiTftTrncf IH do- flari'd SusjM'nsion of intorffn-iio' lor fonsidtTation . . . .| Tradt-nmrkw munt Imvc lu>«-n dccidi-d to \»- rv^^• I istrahle Wlu-n r.8, «2 65 10 Issue of cortificaU'H of rc;,'istratioii j To assi^riu't* I Lawful tradt-marks, or tlios*- u>»fd lawfully. al»)ne j n'gistrahlc | Lonjrtli of tinif ust-d to Ix- n-citrd (sec Statiitc) . . . .| 22 (h Ix'tttT^, rules and rc^iulatioiis ;,'ov(Tiiiti;:. (Sec Cor- I rt'wpondriicc. ) List of tradi-marks to l.c pulilislird in tlic Ollic-ial j Gazt-tti' I Mi'rcliandis«', class of, to Itc rccitt-d (si-c Statute) . . .1 Merits, ollice action to Ik- dircct«'d to tin- I Mode of applviii;,' and allixiii;; trademark to the j ^'oods to Ik- recited (see Statute) | Mutilation of papers not i)ermitted Name of applicant not registrable, except under certain conditions Name of applicant will Ik? made uniform Name of a|iplicant to We r<'cited (see Statute) New matter not j)ermitte(l liy amendment Notary, attorney may not act as N) 41 34 40 7:i 7. J 20 :.l (1(H» tl(M) (i(KI 0»1) flOO.tSOl (iU4, 00") ((0(> .->oi r)02 .'V02 .-)02 r)08 :.oi rm .')02 .">0H rm\ r)OS U02 tuts (lOK :,i r>4 r>i 51 51, 54, 55 07 6 56 56 22(a) 19 10 12 12 14 66 46 68 40 69 62, 63 69 72 38, 39 61 17, 19, 62 40, 59 11 20 n 25 60 16 17 18 liOl 601 (502 601 601 601,602 606 588 603 603 592 591 589 589 589 589 606 599 60(i 598 606 605 606 608 597, 598 605 >90.59 1,005 598, 604 589 592 589. 5«3 605 590 1048 iNDi:x. Trademark Rnlei of Patent Office — ('out iniiof i'«Tliliout«'» of rc^iHtratiun Ktpaynu-nt of im)nfy, wlu-ii iniuli- Kj'pri'wntativfrt in tin- L'nitod Stuti'«, foriMj^n appli- oaiitH iTHiKt «l«'8ij;nat«' Ittsiiifuci' of applicants rtHiuircd (svv Statute).... Restrictions on re);ihtration Return of papers laekin;; in courtesy and decorum.. Return of application papers not allowed Review by Commissioner of l|atents of adverse deci- sion Scandalous or immoral mutter not re^ristraltle Schedule of fees Secrecy, applications preserved in Separate letters, when r«H|uired Si;,'natures of a])|>lieants must lie uniform Sjx-ciniens of tlir trademark re<|uire(l Statement : May lie amended Must recite what States, repistration of trademarks used in commerce amon^' Sui»8titute declaration, wlien required Snlistitution of attorneys Suspension of ajiplications Ten years' use prior to Fel). 20, litO"), j)crmits re^ris- tration of certain marks Term of rej^istration : Duration of Rcni'wal of I ransfir of trademark ri<;hts (see also Assij,'nmentH) I'nlavsfu! business, tradenuirks ust-d in, not re^^is- trahl.- Manner, or mode of, to lie recited I Time of, to Im- recited (see Statute) | \'eri(i(ati<)n of declaration I Wei'kly issue to close on Thursday Writing, buHiuebb tu be traasactcd in j •20 -)<>,«•> 1 60. (il lit a. 70, 71 r)88 607 00 6or> 72 608 28 594 22(6) 592 17.19 sno 591 2 588 4.-) 599 .-•« 603 11) 591 <;<) 606 2(> 593 4,42 588 598 24 593 22 (r) 593 41 598 22(6) 592 1!) 591 35 596 13 589 4r)(6-f/i 599 592 604, (iO.'. (iO.'i 60."i 591 22(6) .'i92 22 ( 6 ) 592 34 596 40 .598 1 588 IND£X. 1049 INDEX TO TRADEMARK FORMS. Siil>j<''y and sale, 263. subject to taxation, 263. Trade Slander, 53. lOoO INDEX. ItrfcrcnccM arc to pnget. Tradra Union— hilxl ..f, us tniiirumrk, G'J. "TruJford,** il.'U. Treaty— (l«-tin«'«l. ."»;{."), M. (I. nmkiii;; power nf (\)nj:r«-rtK. Itusis of Act of ISSl, 380. Trofttie* and Conventiona — ax rmiffrriiif,' ri^'lit to ri'^istration. r)4n, r»r)G. jiKiioial notice takni of, 4ti7. witli forci;.'ii nations, »iiuiniTutt'.l. "Trenton." .">40, h. 24. "Trilby" (j;lov.>st. l.'JO. Trnstee — iliity of. (o prottrt title to tr.uloniark, .1!tO. in l)ankriiptiy lias title to liankrupt's trailtniarks, HO, n. 79. Traits — eoiieerninj; titlfs to tradomarks, .Si)0. Truth— iniiispt'nsalilf to valid murk, 73. "Tncker SprinR" (Led), 112. "Turpentine Shellac"— as tradename, 14. "Twrin Brothera" (yeast), l.'U. "Tycoon" (tea). 112. XT Ultimate Consumer — prolialde (le(eptii)n of, aH tent of infriM>rem«-nt, 307. "Unclean Hands" — aH a defenw, 44*1. "Uneeda" (l.iseiiiti, 12, l.'U, .131. Unfair Competition (see InfrinRemcnt, and Juriiidiction) lil'fWeell vendor UIkI Velldi f goodwill. Jlld. Iiill in «-<|uity to enjoin, 4.'{{l. n. 22. Iiy impropiT iiw f)f proper name, restrained, 47. Iiy UH4' of tradename, 14. n. 21. diMtin>.'niMlied from (rademark infrin^'enietit , 47. INDEX. 1051 RefercnrcH are to pagrit. Unfair Competition (»ec Infrinijenient, anil Jurisdiction) — Con- tinued. ^'fiiiTif wohIh |irott'it('(l ajjaiiiHt, 47. in wluit it ooiiHirttH, 2. law of, includcrt law of tradt iiiarkH, t. law of, IH well Hi'ttli'd, 42. rt'lirf ajiaiiiHt, hawed on fraiid aj,'aiiiHt the jdaiiitilf ami tin- imldic, 47. Union Labels — and otlier niarkw of tradis unionn, r>(»7, ').'J2, ^((7. an trademarks, (»2. infrin^'finent of, enjoined hecaiine unfair competition, tJ2. ♦'Union Metallic CartridRe Co.." j42. "Union Station" (ei^'arH), 303. "United States" (dental rooms), 112. United States- defined in Aet of lOOo, .")86. United States Statutes (see Statutes, Federal). "Universal," 331. UnTvary — deception of, as test of infringement, 304. User— a prerequisite to acquirin<; trademark, .'iSO, .')73. after application filed, may l)e shown hy supplemental petition, r>3n, n. 1(). casual, insuUicient to create trademark right, G3, G4, 72. character of, necessary, 64, 539. held immaterial under Act of 1870. (>4, .'i.SO. must he shown to secure rejijistration, r)3n. must he actual, ()3, ril'.i. must he upt)n <;oods actually upon the market, 70. of trademark, limited to indicating; origin and ownership, 1.57. originally unlawful, not cured hy ahandonment of mark hy owner. 71. single instance of. sufficient to eatablish right to trademark, 04. Utah Statutes, 807. 1052 INDEX. Rcfcrcncca arc to pagct. y "Vacnnm" (tiros), 113. Validity— as of dnto of adoiition, in.''i. V&lnatlon of Goodwill, .32. 2:)8. Valnation of Trademark, .VI, Value of Trademark — should be plcadod in fi'di-rnl practice, 415. "Valvollne" (hibricntin;,' oil), 113. 131. Variable Sonnd — words of, as trademarks, 349. "Velva," 336. Vendee — of goodwill, right to re-assign, 233. Vendor'^ of goodwill, rights of, 230. Vei how laid in action at law, 414. Verification— of bill in equity, 430. Vermont Statutes and Forms, 800. "Vertical Top" (ci;,'ar molds), 113. "Vichy" (mineral wattri , 335. "Victoria" ( lozenges i , 113. "Vienna" (bread), 166. "Vita-Ore," 113, 331. "Vitaicope" (machine), 131. Virginia Statutes and Forms. 813, 816. "V-O" (medicine), 113. Voluntary Association — rcj/iKt ration fur mark umd by, refused, 509, 533. "Vulcan" (matches), 131. INDEX. 1053 Referencca arc to page$. W Waiver— always questiun of fact, 208. iiihk; without knowlcdfje of facts, 208. "Waltham" (watchi-a), 10, n. 8. ••Wam«utta" (muHlin), 308,332. 'Warehouseman — BubmisBion of, to avoid costs, 493. "Warren," 332. "Warner" (corsets), I'M. W^ashington Statutes, 817. Water-mark — may be a trademark, 0, 6;"). "Water of Ayr" (stone), 113. "Waverly" (bicycles), 131. "Weber" (pianos), 334. "Webster's Dictionary." 113. "Welcome" (soap), 332. W^est Virginia Statutes, 822. Wliarfingers — liandlinj,' infrin^'ing goods, given lien for charges, 404. lien of, upon infringing goods, 404. "WTiirllng Spray" (syringes), 113. "Wllloughby Lake" (scythe-stones), 131. W^lsconsin S^tatutes, 826. "Wistax's Balsam of W^ild Clierry," 131. Witness- privilege as to disclosure of secret process, 263. "W^onderful Magazine" Case, 108. "Worcestersiiire" (sauce), 113. 1054 INDEX. Rcfrrcncvs arc Id poijii. Word*— Hiiji-otivoH, 07. at« tnnlfinarks, fi, Or>, 07, 141. lH>como jii-ncric tliroiijjh iiw, 148. from a fon-ign lanj^^iiapo, 143. Iih(«• infringed by, or infringt', a pymbol, 332. of doiil>K" meaning, 194. suggt'stivo, !•;"). Wrapper!, 140. Writ of Injunction- form of, T'.'l. Wyoming Statutes, 829. "Yale" (locks), 113. "Yama-Mai," 334. "Yankee" (soap), 131. ♦'Yucatan" (leather), 113. "Yusea," 332, 360. lINTVKR^ITYf.rrM.IFORNU AA 000 772 212