The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-08-07 00:00:00

THE LAW OF " TRADE MARKS."

The Cause of " Marshall v ft as' was heard, last veva,
before Vice. Chancellor Sir W. M James, anti was a motion to
restrain the defendants from &alum with or dhposing of cer-
tain parcels of goods in wrappers hearing a spurious mark in
imitation ed the plaintiffs' trade mark.
- - -

-
The plaintiffs are flax spinners and thread manufac-
turers at Leeds and Shrewsbury, and are in the habit
of using an embossed stamp for the wrappers of first
quality thread of their manufacture. This stamp son.
tame the words "Marshall and Co." in the centre sur-
rounded by a wreath and outer margin on which are
the words, "Shrewsbury" and "Patent Thread."
Early in the present month certain packages of thread,
shipped from Belgium for re-exportation to Australia,
with British words on the wrapper, were on this at.
count stopped at the Customhouse. The words on the
wrapper were "Shrewsbury Martha! Patent
Thread." It appeared that the thread bearing this
spurious label was manufactured at Ninove, in Bel-
and purchased by the defendants (Melvin. Dietz,
of Brussel.) for shipment to Port Phillip by the de-
fendant Brie., who is a shipping agent in Dower
Thames-sireet. Under these circumstances the plain•
tiffs had filed their bill to restrain any dealing with or
disposing of the thread in wrappers bearing the spurious
stamp in imitation of their trade mark.
Mr. Kay, Q.C.' and Mr. A. G. Marten for plain.
tiffs, in support of the motion.
Mr. Davey, for the defendant Ross, stated that he
was a mere innocent agent for the purpose of shipping
the thread to Australia, without any knowledge what-
ever as to the alleged fraud. He also submitted that
the plaintiffs by untruly representing their thread on
their trade mark as "patent thread" had forfeited all
right to protection in that court.
The explanation given by the plaintiffs in their affi-
davit as to the use of the word " patent " was that it
had been for many years used by thread manufacturers
and the trade as the name and designation of linen
thread of a certain quality, and that it had no refe-
rence to any patent rights. The defendants, Messrs.
Dietz, did not appear.
The Vice-Chancellor said that there had been a clear
imitation of the plaintiffs' trade mark, and there was
no such misrepresentation, designed, or undeeigned, in
the use of the words "patent thread" by the plaintiffs
as to deprive them of their right to relief. The word
"patent" might, as was said in the House of Lords
in the American leather-cloth case, be used in such a
way as not to deceive; for instance, the term "patent
leather hoots" was in constant use; but no one sup-
poeed that it was intended thereby to convey the im-
pression that the leather was protected by any patent.
Here, in the same way, the term "patent thread,"
from its use, not only by the plaintiffs, but in the trade
generally, for many years past, had become a word of
art. There would be an injunction against sending
away the thread in wrappers bearing the spurious
stamp.
Mr. Davey offered at once to destroy the wrappers
so stamped.
The Vice-Chancellor: Provided you destroy the
wrappers, the injunction will not prejudice your send-
ing away the goods.