The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-27
TRADE MAX DECISION.

The first under the recent Trade Mark act came
up before Judge Bla chord sitting in the United States
Circuit Court yesterday. Tho complanants Marsh
l. Co., and The defendants George Warren and
Alexander l.. Farweather The compainants allege
that they the inventors OF washing MIXTURE ana
that in connection with the sale pr said they
devised and used trade mark consisting OF a woman
attred as women usually are when engaged in wash
ing clothes; and that in addition their trade mark
they composed and used by way OF directions certain
mode and manner of usiEg II, and in addition thcy
used the words s'shake Well before using" which
they have duly registered and that the deicn
dants are Infringing upon their directions, and
their caution by using colorado limitations thereof
on their bottles They also ailege that warren was
formerly IN their employ, aud wnie thcrc acquired
means OF manufacturing thelr mixture, and after
leaving their employ entered into partnership with
the 9th defendant and al nee commenced The man
uiacture OF fluid oil substantially the same uescrip.
ton, which they have extensively sold 10 complain-
ants customers 10 he damage OF compa,nants
$40 000 and they bring III Is recover said dam
ages and Tor an Injunction 10 Restrain Warren 4 Co.
from using on thor bottles the printed directions and
used on theirs. There Is preteucc that
tho irontispecc or trade mark IS simulated or praed
but the niplant Is that the label portion color
able imitation OF the CON Iainants composition ana
M iscads the public. Mr. Amos Broadnax appcprcl in
support OF the motion nd argued that the label por.
ton as protected under tho Copy Ign act BY the re-
cent OF June Is, 1874, and that the defendants
ought to be cnjoined. Mr. Charles Bandy represented
The defendants and read the opposing answer to tho
in the bill He argued on behalf OF the dcfendants at
length that the provisions OF toe Copyright afforded
civil remedy TO the conpiansnts; that the only
statute OF the Cnitcd States which Ia any way gave
remedy 10 the compiainants such AS they now seek,
the Trade Mark act passed Sth july 1870 and that
act only afforded a remedy Tor an infringement OF a
trade mark, ana that Label was not trade mark,
less II contained some OF the essential clements OF
trade mark and that the printed directions IN question
did not contain these elements as they contain
30 symbol device or emblem or marx OF originality,
which usually so 10 make up trade mark, and that
q
use oil the language there set forth than they have TO
register dictionary and seek ito exclusive use; and
ne further argued tnai IN case the provisions OF the
Trade Mark act did not apply that hcn there was no
statute OF the United States which gave remedy TO
the compliments, ana the Court without iurisdic
dicton as Court OF Equity nasnucl MS The complain
ants and defendants residents OF the State
He further argued that the Trade Mark act was uncon
sttutona as Consross only had the power to pass
law ~ mat regard TO promote science and he line arts
and mat there Is nothing scientific or artistic III the
Invention OIL trade marx, ana especially IN this
Judge Batchord reserved decision questions
raised. Amos Broainax appeared Tor the complain
ants and Messrs. Hall and Bandy ios the defendants