The sun., 1872-02-26

been engaged in the business complained Of. The pre-
srgiICn o. one ySsr witch @ f. also pIe,dcd cuts of
longer than twelve months PRIOR to citation u!oy G.
lca Of ten In the further point that the de-
rugtcd rossess 81 or ten years full and complete title
i,a gTea met the Glaig,t e. neither ct GS ss a'
hc Inns t,n mark We do not undcfstsud the current
snoe,ssr St 10 his cas IN the p,ssaae cSJ b IL en
u9f sTSs TS % @ b. e IlaI Scne e. ' ths propey
In trade marks far at least they consist IN tNc
bay@ become Tr known w itat NINE can n cSst Only il
TO sen ho epccilc article and far as they consst in
aytinR other tlln TIC proper name OF the tlnE which
cNst only 10 The uanniacturcr or in those entitled to
Assuming this statement to be accurate. It simply
mean. that L the gl'intGs trac mars had consisted
sary for him to show exclusive right y manufacture;
hut II The trade mark consists of something clsr, the
! ntis own name combined with sonorous appclla-
uOi u calculated TO expires origin aud oWhcisp,a ~
ofbuyert only necessary that he should
hSet Sb % SS STfqe n rs & or rnrfifn pa s
correctly sated In The following passage from the same
THAT ne honest, stn'u snd Industrious tnanufac.
%eS W .e e9s r Pr9dnTgd 9
that has found favor with the public and who. by anx
serves to dsSeasR as Ss SnG o dnsuisS Tn from
al Others has inrnshed his Individual guarantee and
ure, shall receive the drst reward Of Ills honesty sk.
mo- Se ped Of 1Rs e S me u b 20 Snoa rSo TO
that end appropacs and applies TO his productions the
or colofable imitation Of the name mark device,
or symbol that the public are may be, deceived
or mised into the purchase OF the productions OF the
one, supposlng them 20 be those Of the other"
And see stokes ys. Iendgrn. Il Barbour, 6s Howard
Va. Henriquez, sanford, rs; Brooklyn White Lead
Company vs. Massay Is Barbour 46; Williams vs. John
tts In vain for defendants to urge that the several
words which compose the name given by plaintiff 10 his
goods are not new. His combination Of those orts Il
proved 70 have been new, and It il proved TO indicate
the origin and ownership OF the nquOr and the defend
ants have no right TO nch this coordination or any I'm
chaser
Upon this branch Of the case the decision In Cont vs.
Aessoyn Bcayan 69 IL In point, where the defendants
paintfis upon watches, but also any OF the Turkish
words and other devices hrst used hy paiatln to de-
scribe The merits Of his watches. And see CLARK vs.
SIN less can The defendants escape under the absurd
excuse given In their testimony that they putting
permit from Mr. Wolfe. The iather.in.iaw Of one Of
them II appears that this person died about four years
before this action was begun but, N he had lived the
made the defendants attempt to dcccive eccm more d.,
lihCratc and studied Graft Day Reavan 81 Rod
gers W. HOW'LL, Man. Or aud Scott, 109. -
Nor 10 there merit In the point that the plaintiff
cannot because his label, which contains the
statement that copyrighted, does not also show the
date at which the entry was made nor IN the point
This 10 not suit to enjOln the infringement OF copy
right the courts OF the United states alone have us
We presur the proof to shoS that in 1851 the plain.
TIL copyriR ted his label IN New York merely In.
tended to that he devised the ab, as early that
we NJ the damages in this case at too
II therefore ordered that the Judgment appealed
from he reversed and the verdict ABIDE tRst the
plaintiff have Judgment against defendants in soiio for
the OF ftecn hundred dollars, and that the pre-.
minay injunction Issued herein be perpctuated, with
LeOvy 4 Monroe and scnmes a Mott for plaintiff and
Hyains q Jonas for defendants