The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-03-31

rue MONT sI0oniso oEsscs

eis lpIuncon rbomnsoa III 1, somewsst 80 e,ssg
arses e sag ear Of Psesysana whose
should been more frsqssns =
The case q qeIIiaay Bard reported Ia sa rhnadsi
Their LUDLOW delivered an essoraSe Int WI shaS ny s.s
opal'h seems 70 o me on sportsd dec "a i slss
ous s sss c, sss az 10y ss1 ssss & s.
osen 81 aa s,ar, q tl h. Ss ead q enc Fash sa
Of the Information required o The gatoo o. me csss
lis we settled M, Court OF EQUITY VIII ersrc,.. M
power FOR the projection OF tho owner Of trade msrk h
nina Designate rnanafar,p5s sad % ii sus
sus ,se maj from so,s s 81 ct s s ,yoao,. A.
saa entitled. % dist them tina, dealing
sosnse them As his the maker Therefore either
figure gnate tue ownership or o. lie
rom % i he eo p e ~ oSsaa o % ( 10
OF hs enterprss o. ssi and ~ imitation endeevor 20 I'M
The abortion Of trade mark device 70 Indicate he
right 10 tho exclusive production Of the article marked
asas nav be- maas s5s sns r. TSss n
ps ne e sa i thai any pss ..
M u that s he s"ass 81
~ him a'e ne products anc,nsr besy e Perry Va
sssn ,cen applied o case, where there Iosa.oa
hioted from stamping hs manufacture certain words
which he s.pposed We're crpvs o. particular quality
msngsstnrsr ans Indicated his ownership Miinston ~
TIC "iI,Ss @arI esgaot. q exclusive mus, y.
sG a. S 'es s s s e wnh IS that
Word Which q the name q the ar,lcl. Or iadiea.s. ~
manufacture the article and % call BY ~
o 81 n pon *:
90 anI poy IN s ye. snf'o1 Is nsp
c. Spear sssnS } 9 r. ssa i barb Cos No..
woSs be obstructive Of The freedom Of trade and restrictive
The Of article canno, become the exclusive pro
% sr aa s IS s s
ousye rgn 70 prepare o he eths. :" psrsu,ar lower
the e such G~es or Could a, Re ,s
extract OF roses or OF Peruvian bark because he adopts The
THIS principle has been e.boraely considered IN several
eases Amoskes, Man Co vs. Spear Stokes w Lsndgr.G
short Judge Duer the cited ease sn eneis.
PIRATE name Of article sss only 10 Soss
%sU ssys a Ss hase g
inc s ha o e we ss s
given Il IL only the seductive name that they calm ~ their
So Stokes isnagran u said"In respec. to woraa
S % n rs ss M ss n mi
rus prevails no property in such words marks -
Which n, not n. o. e @
become exclusively the trade marx @ It's inventor ass
e ne word word closely rssemSins
ACQUIRE prope,ty meyiy II name marx Ss:
marx for the purpose OF deception Perry vs. rruens
This question considered in the cassof Burnet N
phaon IN the Supreme Court o. New YORK and az
anes BY the pain,is, word Inoxn 10 .As I...
sossy i%,asa the hue trad. mark q psn
pa ne
h wss na sdoa Vi. nG n se or Of
But that case tie Judge remarks THAT no e,s
sna others
f IN wv Il
use 70 % ~ % 16 qs:G S s.a In oo
greme Court New York e How r. RI "a !. was s:sa
was simply propet o. the article sod and .ssS
SE made :, no ~. never wVa . 10 ass
may os'. I rshs e q:
right can never DO successfully
hs present s.ss The plaintiff claim 70 compound
Cd or 70
claim essus,c right in the perfume se TneX S.vs
and claim IL the name alone an exclusive right 40 'he
.Aa. The :, sss K. IS r., :.
mar. n TIA. s.psc, pgr. nvenon Tnc nsss
TIA, name which when Grs pusis noios,
@ musn n Ia. The right % 0 seS an
e Ell Is: s Of :'s s.
q: cas-: .s s sss: =
dssxu;,s Thing. their au.iiiss q
e.; s:' re- ss e S;sss ': :sas,
indeed could be- a. The respective labels l.
iSS, Of The psn,a could scarcely label o. d
defendant besides the most distinctive words upo
the deendants label those indicating their name enA
There nothing show that the dcfendana
used art by close imitation OF the label TO dispose -
Their perfume under the false preenoe OF It's being The
The exclusive right 10 the all that clsnasA
and for hs reasons given. We think thn9
TO this the plaintiffs are not entitled.
But another principle which well settled stands h
the psinnns' way thai Is. that equity WIN not protect
As an exhibit the plaintiffs produced advertising esr1
usca @ give publicity 70 ,hsr new 10 upon whsss
Night ing distilled from this aud beomp
ufu flower, from which il takes Its mama.
alcoholic compound-no extract from the flower. fn6
is deception intended 70 impose upon the public By ers
II msy he Thai the deception IL harmless The msuufas
stli II is deception. and the plaintiff has rshS
expect Court OF Equity To aid him Ia carrying %.
IS Fsvel vs. Harrison 10 Eng L and e. is. FsiirdGc
rs Wells. T. Abb Pr. Rep la.
The ai b. h July ss. nan
their labels was used initiate me pantns aeeI9
and they show BY the AFFIDAVIT Of The il!hographer By wh
the existence OF the pianis' label designed 49,
TSe ntes are 80 e alike and the name Of the defe,I
ants distinctly printed upon theirs that a. has ere.Sy
been said. one pnrebAnns Wrss: Night Bioomi1s Co
that the defendants did not sell sho8
preparation that Of Phaons they clearly msrksd u -
their production and we have been unable 70 discover
in ground upon which ws could properly ssss
fere BY INJUNCTION
Pateutsi Patentss Patentsf
Msssrs MUM co. publishers Of the sCiBNff3I3
AMERICAN continue V act as ATTORNEYS Tor securing -
p Tor p:w nn co ,s ys
In soliciting Patents and have acted % Anornsys for ms
~ nhs.s con,sinins Patent Laws and other impss
tan Information invsntors furnished frss On spps