페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

TRADE-MARKS—Continued.

Merrick Thread Co., C. D., 1893, 373; 63 0.G., 1531; 149 U. S., 866, and other

authorities cited.) *Meyer v. Dr. B. L. Bull Vegetable Vedicine Company, 197. 12. SAME-RIGHT TO USE ONE'S OWN NAME IN TRADE-While the right of no

one can be denied to employ his name in connection with his business or with articles of his own production, so as to show the business or product to be his, yet he is not allowed to designato his article by his own name in anch way as to causo it to be mistaken for the manufacture or gooils of another already on the market under the same or similar namo. (Broren Chemical Co. v. Meyer, C. D., 1891, 316; 55 0. G., 287; 139 U. S., 510; Lucrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg.Co., C. D., 1891, 415; 55 0.G., 1328; 138 U.S.,

537.) *Id. 18. INTENTION TO ADOPT—Sales of medical preparations in this country by a

foreign manufacturer, to a limited extent, npon special orders, to supply particnlar customers, do not amonnt to use in such circumstances as to publicity and to such leugth of 11se as show an intention to adopt a symbol placed upon such preparations as a Trade Mark. (kohler Manufa. Co. v. Beshore, ante, 277; 67 0. G., 678; 59 Fed. Rep., 572, followed; Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co., 52 Fed. Rep., 155, affirmed.) "Richter 'v. Reynolds

et al., 260. 14. REGISTRY AS EVIDENCE OF INTENTION—The registry of a Trade Mark under

the act of March 3, 1881, may be evidence in a snit to restrain infringement of a common-law Trade Mark 11sed for the same article in domestic con. merce to show what complainant renlly claimed. (Kohler Vanufg. Co. r.

Beshore, ante, 277; 67 0. G., 678; 39 Fed. Rep., 572, followed.) *Id. 18. SAME—The registry of a Trade-Mark, the essential feature of which is described

as “ the representation of a red anchor in an oval space," is not proof of intention to adopt a Trade-Mark consisting of the word “Anchor" and the symbol of an anchor, irrespective of color and surroundings. (Richter v.

Anchor Remedy Co., 52 Fed. Rep., 455, attirmod.) "Id. 16. TREATY WITH GERMANY-CONSTRICTION—The treaty of 1871, between the

United States and Germany, (article 17, 17 Stat., 931,) which provides that, with regard to the marks of labels of goods or of their packages, the citizens of Germany shall enjoy in the United States the same protection as native citizens, does not give to a citizen of Germans who has acquired the right to a Trade-Jark in that country a similar right to the Trade Mark in

the United States. "Id. 17. INTENTION TO ADOPT-Sales of a few clozen bottles of a medicinal preparation,

with written labels affixed, benring name different from that prerionsly used for ench preparation, ilo 1104 amount to use in such circumstances as ro publicity and to such length of 118d in to show an intention to adopt the written words as a Trade Mark. 119. 1)., 1893, 179; 62 0.G., 592; 33 Fed.

Rep., 262, affirmed.) *Kohler Manuructuring Company v. Beshore, 277. 18. REGISTRY AS EVIDENCE ON INTENTIUS-Although registration of a Trade

Mark under the act of March 3, 1881, may not prerent the adoption of another device as & common-law 'l'r:do-Mark for the same article iu domestic markets, such rexistry my be evidence, in a suit to restrain infringement of such common law Tralo-Mark, to show what complainant

really claimed. * Id. 19. STATEMENT TO OBTAIN VEINTRITION:- In such suit the statement med to

obtain registration and attacked in the afidavits on motion for a prelimi.

nary injunction may be considered on the final hearing. "Id. 20. INFRINGEMENT—"One Night Clure, "Inex ns a Trade Mark for a cough remedy

and for a corn remedy, is not intringerl by the use of the words “Beshore's One Night ('ough i'llles," C. 1)., 18:13, 179; 62 0. G., 592; 53 Fed. Rep., 02, affirmed.) * Id.

TRADE-MARK8-Continued. 21. INJUNCTION-QUACK MEDICINES—Query whether equity will intervene by

injunction to protect the nse of words claimed as a Trade-Mark between

owners of quack medicines. "Id. 22. WORDS Making False ASSERTION-It seems that an injunction should not be

granted to protect the use of words as the 'Trade-Mark of a medicinal propa

ratiou which assert a nanifest falsehood or physiological impossibility. "Id. 23. APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION - DIVISIOXOXE REGISTRATION MAY

EMBRACE SEVERAL DIFFERENT ARTICLES—There is no anthority for requir. ing division of an application for the registration of a Trade-Mark to accord

with the subdivisions of the Office classitication. Ex parte Silvers, 54. 24. TRADE-MARKS-RIGHT TO-Aliexs MAY SUE IN UNITED STATES COURTS

Citizens of Canada who are engaged in the manufacture of trade-marked articles and who have a place of business in the State of New York, where they make and ship such articles for sale in the United States, are within the International Convention of March 20, 1883, for the protection of industrial property, and they may sue in the United States courts for the infringe.

ment of their Trade Marks by its citizens. * Kerry et al. v. Toupin, 302. 25. SAME_What CoxSTITUTES-INFRINGEMENT—Complainants manufutured a

medicinal compound under the name of “Syrup of Red Spruce Gum," and for some twenty years or more that same was placod conspicuously on tho package in which the compound was sold, and in connection therewith appeared a cut of an Indian against a background of sprnco-treos and a waterfall. Held that the adoption and continuous 1180 of this distinctive name and device entitle complainants to claim it as a Trade-Mark and to

be protected against its infringement by persons making similar gooils. *Id. 26. IN AX ArrLICATION FOR TAX REGISTRATION OF A T'RADE-MARK TIIE VALUE OF

THE REGISTRATION DETERMINES THE AMOUNT OF Money INVOLVED—Tho refusal of the Commissioner of Patents to register a Trade-Mark does not involve the right to the Trade Mark, but the registration of the Mark, and it is the value of the registration and not the value of tho Trade Mark that determines the sum of money involved. "C'nited States ex rel. the State of

South Carolina v. Commissioner of Patents, 318. 27. COXTROVERSY AS TO THE EXTEXT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER

OF PATESTS UNDER THE TRADE-MARK LAW-Does Not IxVOLVE THE VALIDITY OF AX AUTHORITY EXERCISED THEREUNDER—Where upon tho refusal of the Commissioner to register a Trade-Mark a writ of mandamus was unsuccessfully sought against him, upon the ground that npon the facts Bubinitted his clity was ministerial and not discretionary, no objection to the validity of the Trade Mark law under which the Commissioner acted being made, nor the existence or lawfuloess of his authority thereunder being drawn in question, and the only controversy upon the proceedings being as to the construction of the law as to the extent of the Commissioner's authority, Held that such controversy did not draw into question the validity

of an authority exercised under the United States. *Id. 28. NUMERALS APPLIED TO SPECIFIC REMEDIES–Numerals used by a medicine

company to identify specific remedies for various ailments are in effect descriptive terms, and their use will not be protected as a Trade-Mark.

* Humphreys Homeopathic Vedicine Company v. Hilton, 324. 29. “BROMO-QUININE" - DESCRIPTION — MISREPRESENTATION — REGISTRATION

REFUSED "Bromo-Quinine" is a compound word descriptive of the preparation to which it is applied, indicating that it contains bromine or a bromido and quinino. If it does not contain bromide, the description is false, and in

either case the term is not a valid Trado-Mark. Ex parle Grore, 69. 30. INFRINGEMENT-SOCIAL REGISTER—The words “Social Register,” as applied to a list of persons resident in a certaiu locality, compiled by its publishor

10693 PAT 48

TRADE-MARKS-Continued.

with reference to the personal and social standing of such persona, consti.
tute a valid Trade Mark, and their use by the publisher of a competing list

will be restrained. * Social Register Association v. Horard, 336.
31. TRADE-MARK-INFRINGEMENT-One who dresses up his goods to imitate the

principal label and trade-mark of another to deceive the consumer into the
belief that he is purchasing the article of another, Held to be an infringer.

and that he inay be enjoined. *Ton Jumm et al. v. Frash et al., 374.
32. EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC-When the evidence war-

rants the conclusion that the dress of the article is only used in order to
deceive purchasers into the belief that the goods are those of another,
Held it is not required to establish that any particular person had been so

deceived. "Id.
33. SAME-COMPARISON OF DEVICES BY THE COURT—The court may compare

the trade-mark of complainant with the device used by the respondent to
determine their identity, and does not necessarily require the testimony of

witnesses to prove the likeness. * Id..
34. OWNERSHIP_When the complainants applied a name to a small lot of cigars

made to a special order in 1878, and did not again apply the name to cigare
until 1884, and then for the purpose of competing with another party who
had applied the same name to cigars in 1881, and not again until 1889, and
wben the defendants, in 1885. withont knowledge of what had been done
by complainants, and in good faith, applied the name to cigars of their
own manufacture, and made continnod and extensive sales and advertise-
ments thereof for five years without objection, Held that the complainante
are not entitled to assert a right to a traile mark in the name as against tho

defendants. *Levy et al. v. Ivaitt et al., 489.
35. HOSTETTER's BITTERS-INFRINGEMENT—Selling an imitation, as such, with.

out any suggestion or arrangement that it be sold again for the genuino
article, although with assout to such anggostions from others, does not
infringe the right of the manufacturor of tho genuine. "Hostetter Company

v. Pan Vorst, 688.
USE AND SALE OF PATENTED ARTICLES. Seo Apparatus and Product; Infringe-

ment, 3, 4; Public Recognition Erinence of Inrention; Witnesses.
RENEWED USE–Where the defendant purchasod of the patentee an apparatus

for toilet paper with which the latter was acoustomed to send a roll of
paper used in the same, Hold that the salo of the apparatus carried with it
the right to use and sell tho apparatns upou a replonishment of the paper.

*Morgan Envelope Company v. albany l'erforated Wrapping Paper Company, 238.
USE OF PATENTED ARTICLES BY THE UNITED STATES. Soe Suite for

Infringement Against the United States.
UTILITY. Soo Invention, 13.
VALIDITY OF PATENT. Soo Ansignments, 8, 9, 10; Construction of Specifications

and Patents, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7; final fera; Priority of Invention, 5; Public Apprecia-

tion Evidence of Inrention; Suitx for Infringement, 1, 5.
ABANDONMENT-The failure of a patentou for some yonrs to mannfacture his device

does not defeat the rights vested in him by the patent. *Masseth v. John-

aton et al., 233.
VALIDITY OF PATENTS AFFECTED BY DELAY IN PROSECUTION. Soo

Laches
VALID PATENTS. See Construction of Specifloations and Patents, 22; Particular

Patents, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 28, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51,
54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 95.

VOID PATENTS. See Invention, 18; Particular Patents, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21,

22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 44, 50, 52, 53, 58, 66, 68, 69, 73, 76, 79, 83, 84, 87,90, 93, 94; Public Appreciation Evidence of Invention, 4; Reissue, 1,7; Subsequent

Patents, 1, 11. WAIVER. Soe Suits for Infringement, 4; Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, 1. WITNESSES. Soo Priority of Invention, 2; Trade-Marks, 1, 2, 3, 19, 20, 21. ACTIONS—WITNESSES-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-The vendor of an infringing device,

wbo is not a party to the suit, may be compelled to testify to the purchase and use thereof by the defendant without violating the constitutional provision that no witness shall be compelled to testify against himself in any criminal caso, for Revised Statutos, sections 4919, 4921, do not subject an infringer to penalties or forfeitures, but merely authorize the court in its discretion, and “according to the circumstances of the case," to impose additional damagos. *Masseth v. Johnston et al., 233.

« 이전계속 »