The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1877-1885, 1879-12-04
Trade Marks

-Idi. u Ulldl :. 1dll "IilcS ~ Tic DURHAM
Plant:
hr. Editor: In answer to your enquiry,
as to what effect the recent decision of the
Supreme Court upon Irade-M Marks is likely
to have, ] beg to state that | dom appre-
bend that 1t will work any serious Inconven-
fence to owners of trade marks-from the
fact that the decision Of the court declares
only the Act of Congress of 1870, unconsti-
t%utional, and apart from this act there is
sufficient protection at common law to own
ers of trade marks. The act Of 1870 allowed
the owners of a trademark 20 proceed Grim
inally against pirates upon their trademark
rights-punishing the offender with fine and
Imprisonment. This criminal feature of the
trademark law, and one rarely ever resorted
to, has been swept away by this decision.
But the same right to protect your trade
mark, and the same remedies at common
law exist now-as previous to the decision.
It you will think a minute you will see that
my theory is correct, for the decision only
upsets an act of Congress enacted 1870,
and we all know that previous to 1870, there
existed trademarks and trademark rights
consequently protection tor trade marks.
Within the past few years my firm has
fought some of the heaviest trademark
suits that have engaged the attention of the
courts OF this country, and in none OF these
have we had occasion to resort to any tea-
ture of the act of Congress 1870. You are
aware with what results our litigation has
always been attended, hence you very readi-
ly perceive that apart from this act of Con-
gres S lS7O-that the W e of a trademark
can secure the fullest protection. We have
never found any trouble in the past, don't
apprehend any in the future-there has al
act OF Congress and these remedies still re-
main. We propose to be as jealous in the
protection OF our GREAT DURHAM BULL
TRADEMARK as the law allows us to be, and
Will not hesitate to proceed ~nstante7' against
any and all infringements. My firm would
have fought a trademark suit in Baltimore
on Monday of this week, the oath, the case
was set for a hearing on that day. and our
senior was on hand with all of our counsel
ready, willing and a waiting" but the
court failed to dispose of a big jury case
which was on the docket-hence we were
put Off until the January term. There is
living proof that there must be law enough
left yet to protect a trade mark, and that ace
are determined to use It. AS few-compara-
lively speaking ever resorted to the act of
Congress OF 1870, for protection OF their
trademark rights l can't conceive that it's
abolition can naturally effect owners of trade
marks-especially since the common law af-
fords such ample protection. The abolition
of the act of Congress does away with the
registration of a trademark, and now there
is practically no difference between a trade
mark that is registered and one that is not
registered-but a trademark remains a
trademark all the same and can be fully
protected, for as l understand the opinion
of the court it does not hold that there is no
property in a trade -mark-but that it was
unconstitutional to protect that trade mark
MS prescribed by the act of Congress of 1870.
j. S. CARR.