structed to use due diligence to prevent such infringements. A sufficient number of facsimiles should be forwarded to enable the department to send one copy to each port named in the application and ten copies for the files of the department. The application must state the name and address of the manufacturer and contain a description of the trademark and the names of the ports to which the facsimiles should be sent, and must be accompanied with proper proof of ownership.

Treasury Decision, August 3, 1897.

TRADE-MARK-PENALTY FOR INFRINGEMENT.—

The protection afforded by courts of equity against the infringement of trade-marks is not dependent upon any exclusive right to a particular name or to a precise form of words. The right to relief is rather dependent upon the necessity of extending protection against the commission of fraud, and this fraud may consist in the use of a name to which defendant is entitled, if such use be coupled with other circumstances rendering it an infringement of complainant's rights.

High on Injunctions,, Sec. 1069.

TRADE-MARK-THE WORDS "MONOPOLE” OR “DRY MONOPOLE” IN CONNECTION WITH CHAMPAGNE.—

The Supreme Court of Judicature of Great Britain, in the Court of Appeals, decided on May 1, 1891, that Lord Justice Kay was right in ordering the words "Monopole" and "Dry Monopole” to be expunged from the trade-mark register, on the ground that there had not been such uses of the words as to impress on the public mind the idea that they were used by themselves as trade-marks. The defendants had moved to expunge the trade-marks from the register, on the ground that they had never been used alone as trademarks before the date of the passing of the Trade-Marks Registration Act, 1875, and on the ground that they were not "special and distinctive words" within the meaning of that act. It was admitted that the labels always bore, in

addition to the words "Monopole" and "Dry Monopole," the name "Heidsieck & Co., Rheims," while on the cases and the champagne corks, although the words appeared by themselves, a distinctive trade-mark, consisting respectively of an anchor and a comet, surrounded by the name Heidsieck & Co., was also stamped on the other side of the case or the bottom of the cork. On the appeal of the plaintiffs, the decision of Justice Kay was sustained as stated above. TRADE-MARKS—IMPROPER USE OF GEOGRAPHICAL NAME.

The mere use of a geographical name, unaccompanied by any imitation of labels or other indicia, may constitute unfair competition, if it is adopted for the purpose of taking away another's business and good-will.

Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n vs. Fred Miller Brewing Co., 87 Fed. 864.

TRADE-MARK-MARKS OF QUALITY ARE NOT.

An exclusive right cannot be acquired to the use of words, letters or symbols to indicate merely the quality of the goods to which they are attached, while, if the primary object of the mark be to indicate origin or ownership the mere fact that the article has obtained such a wide sale that it has also become indicative of quality is not of itself sufficient to debar the owner from protection, and make it the common property of the trade; yet, if the device or symbol was not adopted for the purpose of indicating origin, manufacture or ownership, but was placed upon the article to denote class, grade, style or quality, it cannot be upheld technically as a trade-mark.

Lawrence Manufacturing Company vs. Tennessee Manufacturing Company.

TRADE-MARK-FRAUDULENT AND IMITATION WINES MAY BE

SEIZED.

On November 9, 1893, the St. Louis Collector seized 132 packages of spirituous liquors under Section 3449, Revised Statutes.

W. C. Richardson, public administrator of St. Louis, in

charge of the estate of Lehman Meyer, deceased, appeared as claimant for the goods.

The agreed state of facts upon which the case was tried showed that the goods were compounded at the establishment of the Western Distilling Company, at 201 North Main street, in that city, and after being so compounded were put into bottles marked and branded in various ways such as: J. & F. Martell, Cognac; Booth & Co., London, Superior Old Tom Gin; Robert Burnett & Co., Vauxhall, Old Tom Gin; Boonekamp Maagbitter; Noilly, Prat & Co., Vermouth, and so on. Between May 18, 1893, and October 12 of the same year, the packages were transported in drays from the distilling company's business place to the warehouses of the St. Louis Drayage Company for shipment, and it was there that the packages were seized by the internal revenue officers.

In the United States District Court of Missouri a decision was rendered in favor of claimant. The United States filed a writ of error and Judge Caldwell rendered the opinion of the Court, which held:

The admitted facts bring the case within the letter of the statute, and the packages are unquestionably liable to forfeit if the statute is of any force or validity.

Congress has a right to legislate to prevent frauds on the public revenue, and the validity of such legislation is not affected by the fact that it incidentally tends to the restriction or suppression of private frauds.

U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1896.

TRADE-MARK IS TRANSFERRED WITH BUSINESS.—

A trade-mark that has been used in a particular business should be deemed to have passed with a transfer of the business.

Atlantic Milling Co. vs. Robinson, Wallace J., May 6, 1884, 27 O. G., 1322.

TRADE-MARKS-PRIVATE

BRAND.

BRANDS VS.

MANUFACTURERS'

If in the following we substitute "whisky" or "cigars,"" "distillers' brands" for "factory brands," and "private

brands" for "customers' brands," the decision will be appreciated by the whisky interest:

Two classes of labels are recognized by cigar manufacturers "factory brands" and "customers' brands." The latter are originated by a customer, and used only on goods manufactured for him. A cigar merchant ordered a lot of cigars, of a certain size and quality, under the name of "Blackstone," which he originated. This order the manufacturer filled; but the cigars were not taken by the merchant and were sold to other parties. Held, that the manufacturer acquired no right to use the word "Blackstone" as a trade-mark.

Levy et al. vs. Waitt et al., 893.

TRADE-MARK-G. & F. HELD TO INFRINGE G. F. TRADE-MARK.

Complainants' trade-mark "G. F." held infringed by the use of defendants' trade-mark "G. & F." on a similar class of goods, with the ampersand much smaller than the initials, when as registered and used on other goods the ampersand and initial are of uniform size.

Giron et al. vs. Gartner et al., 1430.

TRADE-MARK-CONSTITUTIONAL

UNIONS.

LAW-PROTECTION

FOR

Act May 8, 1891, entitled, "An act to protect associations, unions of workmen and persons in their labels, trademarks and forms of advertising," is not unconstitutional as granting special privileges to certain associations contrary to Const. Ill., art. 4, § 22, since, in giving the right to register such labels and trade-marks to "any person, association or union of workingmen," it gives it to all associations, whether composed of workingmen or not.

Cohn vs. People Ill., 37 N. E. Rep. 60.

TRADE-MARK-CORPORATE NAME AS A TRADE-MARK.—

A foreign corporation, whose name has not become a trade-mark or trade-name, has no right to restrain a domestic corporation from using a corporate name similar to its

own, especially where the domestic corporation was incorporated before the other.

Hazelton Boiler Co. vs. Hazelton Tripod Boiler Co. (Ill.), 30 N. E. Rep. 339.

TRADE-MARK-DEFINITION-CONFLICT

"MONARCH.”—

IN USE OF NAME

R., T. J. and M. V. Monarch built up an extensive reputation and trade for Monarch whiskies, especially in Texas, prior to 1886.

Rosenfeld & Hirsch and the Rock Springs Distilling Company prior to 1886 used the brand "Tip Top" for their whiskies, but they then bought of S. I. Monarch the exclusive right to use his name as a brand for whisky for twenty-five years, agreeing to pay said Monarch seventy-five cents per barrel for all whisky sold by them during that time, with a right to buy one-third interest in their business at actual cost within ten years; S. I. Monarch was then working for a Fort Worth firm on a salary and worth about $10,000 and had never been engaged in the manufacture of whisky. R. Monarch & Co. brought an action in Daviess County, Kentucky for an injunction to restrain the Rock Springs Distilling Company from using the name "Monarch" on their barrels, billheads, etc. Prior to the commencement of this action S. I. Monarch had only one share of stock in the distilling company, but at the time of trial he was president of the company and owned 125 shares.

In 1887, the Circuit Court granted the injunction, holding:

(1) A trade-mark is the name, symbol, figure, letter, form or device, adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate the goods that he manufactures or sells, and distinguish them from those manufactured and sold by another, to the end that they 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.

(2) One of the characteristics of a trade-mark is exclu