name which was adjudged to Labrot & Graham, and when used as indicated, violates, we think, both letter and spirit of the injunction.

1891.

Labrot & Graham vs. James E. Pepper, U. S. Circuit Court,

TRADE-MARK-NAME OF CHIEF INGREDIENT OF AN ARTICLE NOT PROTECTED-RIGHT TO TERM MUST BE EXCLUSIVE.

In the case of Siegert vs. Abbott the Supreme Court decided:

(1) A word or term which denotes the nature or chief ingredient of an article to which it is applied may be used by any manufacturer or producer of such an article, although the word or term has been previously used by others to desig. nate a like article which they produce.

(2) To constitute a valid trade-mark the designation or term applied to the article must be one which the claimant has the exclusive right to use.

(3) It is apparent on principle and well settled by authority that no one can acquire the exclusive right to use a geographical name or term which denotes the nature of the article to which it is applied. The name "Angostura Bitters," being given by the Seigerts to their mixture, because it was manufactured at the city of Angostura or because its chief ingredient was Angostura bark, gives them no exclusive right to the use of the name Angostura, and others manufacturing bitters of Angostura bark may use the same name if they do not fraudulently try to sell it as the bitters prepared by the Seigerts.

(4) Where the articles are made by different firms, at places widely separate and the evidence is insufficient to show that defendants have simulated plaintiff's goods with the intent to deceive intending purchasers and there is no probability that such purchasers will be deceived by the way in which the defendants have prepared and placed their article on the market, the courts will not interfere.

TRADE-MARK-USE OF INDIVIDUAL

WITH OLDER FIRM.

NAME

CONFLICTING

One is entitled to sell his product under his own name, either individually or in connection with a partner; but in doing so he must be careful not to do anything calculated to delude the public into the belief that his goods are those of another having the same name; and if the latter has first acquired a reputation for a particular kind of goods, the former may be enjoined from selling like goods except in connection with a clear statement indicating that they are not the goods of the latter.

The court found that the younger Allegretti had intended to create a confusion as to the identity of the chocolate creams manufactured by himself and by the complainant respectively. The Court of Appeals in the United States Circuit, following the English courts, has formulated a convenient rule applicable to cases of this kind, which saves the complainant's rights and works no hardship to an honest defendant (Baker vs. Sanders, 8 Fed. 895). This rule was followed in the case under consideration. The following order was entered:

"Upon filing a bond for $2,000, conditioned upon final success in the suit, and which would seem to be amply sufficient to cover any additional expense to which defendant may be put, complainant may take an injunction pendente lite restraining the defendant Kellar from selling the candies of Allegretti & Co. in packages bearing the name 'Allegretti,' unless such name may be accompanied with the statement: 'No connection with the original Allegretti of Chicago,' and be further restrained from using the said name in signs or advertisements unaccompanied with a like statement."

Allegretti Chocolate Cream Co. vs. Keller, U. S. C. C., S. D. (N. Y.), 85 Fed. Rep. 643.

TRADE-MARK-PALE ALE AND BEER LABELS.

One using, in connection with pale ale, a plain red triangle stamped on a label, cannot enjoin, on the ground of

unfair competition, one who uses in connection with his lager beer a similar red triangle having a large white "Z" thereon, the labels and posters being so utterly unlike that the ordinary purchaser would not be deceived.

Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton vs. Henry Zeltner Brewing Co., 87 Fed. 468.

TRADE-MARKS-LABELS ON PATENTED ARTICLES.

Distinctive labels on patented articles do not become free to the world on the expiration of the patent. Centaur Co. vs. Killenberger, 87 Fed. 725.

TRADE-MARK-MUST NOT CONTAIN A FALSE REPRESENTA

TION.

The Commissioner of Patents has rendered a decision in the case of an application for the registration of a trademark for distilled spirits in which the words "Knights of Labor" and "K. of L. Distillery" appear. The Commissioner states that there is no pretense that the manufacturers of this particular brand of whisky who apply for the trademark are Knights of Labor or are engaged in business with them or under their auspices, yet the trade-mark points distinctively to this labor organization, or to the members as a class, as the origin of the ownership of the articles to which it is applied. In other words, this trade-mark is in the nature of a false representation and a deception as to the general public, inducing them to purchase and deal with the articles under the belief that it is the article or manufacture of another or a class of persons from whom they prefer to buy. The Commissioner, therefore, on the ground of the false pretenses of such trade-mark, refuses its registration.

TRADE-MARK—INFRINGEMENT RESTRAINED.—

Independently of any right of complainants to the exclusive use, as a trade-mark, of the name applied by them to their product, the sale by defendants of a deleterious substance, represented by the latter to be in part or in whole the same substance in which complainants are dealing, and

of which they are the sole producers, and which is admittedly of a beneficial character, will be restrained.

City of Carlsbad vs. Tibbetts, U. S. C. C., Minnesota, 51 Fed. Rep. 852.

TRADE-MARK-BUSINESS PROTECTED AGAINST FRAUD WITH

OUT.

A lawful business may be protected against fraud by injunction, although not carried on under monopoly of a valid trade-mark. So, if a person is using something to designate his articles, the exclusive right to use which cannot be claimed as a trade-mark, nevertheless if such person can show to a court of equity that another person is selling an article like his in such a way as to induce the public to believe that it is his, and that he is doing this fraudulently, he may have relief by injuction to prevent such piracy. It is a fraud for one person to palm off his manufactures as those of another person, although he commits fraud by the use of names which are not a subject of trade-mark property.

California Fig Syrup Co. vs. Frederick Stearns & Co., 43 U. S. App. 234, 20 C. C. A. 22, and 73 Fed. 812; Salt Co. vs. Burnap, 43 U. S. App. 243, 20 C. C. A. 27, and 73 Fed. 818.

TRADE-MARK-GEOGRAPHICAL NAME CANNOT BE USED BY MANUFACTURERS AT OTHER PLACES.

The Minneapolis flour mill men brought an action in United States Circuit Court to restrain H. R. Eagle, wholesale grocer of Chicago, from selling flours branded "Minneapolis Mills," but manufactured in other places. Judge Showalter in October, 1897, in deciding the case, refused the injunction, holding that the complainants had no such property right in the name of the town or place in which their goods were manufactured as to enable them to stop the use of it, even if wrongful, by makers outside of the state. But on appeal the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in April, 1898, overruled the decision of Judge Showalter and granted the injunction. The decision applies to all classes of merchandise and under it whiskies made in other states

apparently cannot be branded Kentucky bourbon or Pennsylvania or Maryland rye, etc., and it applies with equal force to whiskies made in Canada or in Europe.

TRADE-MARK—WRONGFUL USE OF IS EVIDENCE OF AN ILLEGAL ACT.—

A trade-mark, clearly such, when wrongfully used by a third party, is in itself evidence of an illegal act. It is of itself evidence that the party intended to defraud, and to palm off his goods as another's.

Putnam Nail Co. vs. Bennett, 43 Fed. Rep. 800.

TRADE-MARK-FALSE REPRESENTATION IN LABEL GIVES

GROUND FOR RELIEF.—

If the letters LL formed an important part of plaintiff's label, and the defendant had used them in such a way and under such circumstances as to amount to a false representation, which enabled it to sell and it did sell its goods as those of plaintiff, and this without plaintiff's consent or acquiescence, then plaintiff might obtain relief on the ground of deceitful representation.

Putnam Nail Co. vs. Bennett, 43 Fed. Rep. 800., Id.

TRADE-MARKS-PENALTY FOR SHIPPING LIQUOR UNDER FALSE LABEL.

Judge Hawley of the United States District Court for California has decided that any person who ships, transports or removes any spirituous or fermented liquors from one place to another under a counterfeit label is subject to a fine under Section 3449 of United States Revised Statutes, whether such person be a distiller, manufacturer or rectifier of liquors or not.

TRADE-MARK-FALSE USE OF GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES.

The false use of a geographical name will not be allowed by the Federal Courts, when it is so used to promote unfair competition and to induce the sale of spurious goods.

Collinsplatt vs. Finlayson, U. S. C. C., S. D. (N. Y.), 88 Fed. Rep. 693.