New-York tribune., 1867-05-25
CITIL COURTS.
NEW.YOEK SUPREME COuRT-CHiMBERs- a.
Before Mr.. Justice SUTHERLAND.
IMPORTANT TRADE MAIk CASE-lIGliTS 10 TIE

NEW.YOEK SUPREME URT-CH,MBERs-M,Y "a
Before Mr.. Justice SUTHERLAND.
IMPORTANT TRADE MAIk CASE-glGHIS 10 THE
NAME OF TIlE HOWE sEWlNG-MACllINE.
Amass b. Howe agt The Howe Mlclne CgmpaHy
The plaintiff who IN the brother of Elias Howe Jr.
brought an action IN the supreme Court oi Ns", ORR
alleging that the name Of the Howe sewing Machine
the defendant corp0ration Of which Elias Howe jr, IS
the principal stakeholder and President FROM mlnufac
turing and selling advertising or Offering for sale any
scwinguachnc whcreOn the name Of Howe Is east or
stamped marked, or bearing the trade mark Of
machine under the Hame OF 'The Howe Machine :" or
The Howe sewing Machine" Tor The Original Howe
Sewing Machine, and from advertising or Offering any
SEWN gmachnr FOR sale under any title in which the
name Howe j. used. great number Of afidayits
long series OF years aud the history of the Howe sewing
Machine were read at the hearing Of the motion. The
tiI and Mr. George Tcknor Curtis FOR the defendants
The following is the decision on the motion;
1NCEAiIAM, 1.-THE plaintiff moves for an injunction
against the defendants restraining them from Ianuae
turing selling, or advertising Offering for -a" any
scwin gmachne whercon the name Of Howe" II east
stamped marked, or bearing the trademark OF "The
chine under fhc name Of The Howe Machine" or "he
Howe Sewing Machine, or The Original Howe Sewing
Machine" and from advertising or Offering any sewing
machine for sale under any title in which The name
Howe" is used; IL appears that Llas Howe, r, was
the inventor and has the letters patent That the plain
Tin used the patent with his brother Eass permission.
That he has expended large sums OF money IN trying To
perfect the machine. That both brothers used the same
patterns and castings. and Elias Howe has transferred
his right TO the patterns or gwen license 10 the defend
ants who are now acting under his permission aud
thoy and he s interested In the socf Of the Company
is ts President and manager. My engagements conn.
ualy In Court since heard this motion have prevented
Iuo from writing at length my views on this matter 1
have however, examined the case fully and with the
aid OF the elaborate and able briefs OF the counsel and
must content myself with stating the conclusions 10
whichiI have arrived on such examination
First: Elias Howe, jr, as tho inventor and pktentee,
had the exclusive right 10 make and sell this machine.
SECOND: The license TO his brother, the plaintiff,
fercd on him no other power than TO make and sell the
machine. 10 neither transferred 10 him any exclusive
right 90 make and sell the machine, did II give him
any right the OF Howe connected with IL.
Third Elias Howe, jr, being the inventor aud patentee;
had right to use his name as both ON the machine and
in connection with the sale OF IT, The pantn while act
ing with him either agent partner could acquire
right 20 the name IN opposition to Eilas
Fourth Elias Howe, jr had hight 10 his
the machine 20 sell 10 as his machine ana 70 put his name
1 as s az and as ts 10 @ had Ro
deprive him Of that right IN regard TO machines
maae by him or persons under his license.
Fifth Even II any doubt existed the relations OF
these parties prior TO 1862 they were all changed by the
@ II s sl he as had Ea osa AND sss
that used this belonging TO himself and his right
80 to 90 %as by b% he Ss N taking s
marks for the purpose of SALE and thereafter Eas
his own name and property but because il the plaintiff
had any rights therein he mad surrendered them all 10
Siyh: There NAV DO improvements used by the plain.
tin In the machines manufactured by him which arc
not the property Of the Defendants, or Elas Howe E
but such improvements not connected with The name
OF Howe aud do not the plaintiff any right appro
PIRATE that name TO himself to the exclusion OF the de-
SereaM: II is denied that party may take name
ton or trade mark that does not apply where
n Is sought TO deprive party OF the use Of his
applicable 10 his own patent, aud which he had pre-
viously used in the same manner and for the same
purpose. ~, ,.,.,.n.. ~
ventor Elias Howe Jr all the rights hs possessed TO
make and sell the machines. and his herewith
and far the samo sub OF inquiry here having
all the right which Elias Howe, jun, might have II he
were the defendant
hm snna ts ,ns painn rs not en-
the trial that other facts may DO shown to establish tho