The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-07-16
A Remarkable Trademark Suit.

A Remarkable Trademark Suit.
The decision just rendered by Judge
BLArcHFoRD in the case OF the COLLINS
Company, argued before him In the United
States Circuit Court adds another chapter
to the history OF some interesting trade
mark legislation. Tho COLLINS Company Is
Connecticut manufacturing concern, whose
axes edge tools, and agricultural imple-
ments are used in oil parts of the world.
They are stamped COLLINS Il Co.," the
name adopted over fifty years ago by the
original firm Of which the present company
Is the successor, and In use ever since.
The right to the exclusive use Of this name
upon the products Of their mandatory has
been steadily asserted by the COLLINS Com
pany, and has been successfully maintained
in the courts in numerous suits that have
contributed no unimportant share to the de-
yclopment Of trademark law. Among the
earliest Of these were twcnty-three that were
instituted against various English manufac-
turers. Subsequently nine American manu-
facturers were sued for branding their pro-
duets with marks designed to pass for the
COLLINS brand, without being precisely
identical with it, such as III COLLINS, I'D
COLLINS" and "CoLLINAs Bros & Co."
More recently, legal proceedings were fnst-
tuted against a German manufacturer who
was flooding the Cuban market with tools
| marked "GoBBINs Il Co." In oil Of these
legal contests the COLLINS Company were
| successful. The frauds upon which they
made war were punished by verdicts for Pc
| cuniary decentralization, and their further
| preparation enjoined.
In 1879 the COLLINS Company learned that
| OLIVER AMEs IL Sons Company OF North
Eastop, Mass, one Of the Oldest and largest
| shovel manufacturing concerns OF the coun-
try. were making shovel for foreign mar
kets which they stamped COLLINS Il Co"
| and labelled sometimes in addition manu-
featured by COLLINS 4 Co." and "Manufac-
| tured and warranted by COLLINS & Co."
The word "AMEs" did not appear upon the
Implements in any shape. 1t was somewhat
of surprise to the COLLINS Company to
learn Of this infringement, since they were
at the very same time buying shovel handles
OF the AMEs Company for their own purposes.
They notified the AMEs Company to dscon-
tinue the use Of their name, but were in
formed in return that the AMEs Company
had been using it for twenty-five years. and
claimed that they had thereby acquired q
species of property in it and legal right to
continue to stamp 1t on their shovels.
In the suit that WAS then brought the
AMEs Company sought to make point upon
the fact that the product for which the COL
LINs Company were mainly noted and which
they sold most largely was their axes, while
the mark COLLINS & Co" was chiefly used
by the AMEs Company for shovels; and they
| o1nit cd hpt CHI thna hrnp nd nd
extensively sold during SO long period as o
quarter Of q century had built up a valuable
reputation for them. II, therefore, the Coll
LINs Company objected to the use of their
name upon the AMEs shovels, they ought to
have signiied that fact long ago.
This claim was conclusively met by evil
dence showing that the AMRs Company had
carefully concealed their use OF the COLLINS
brand from the knowledge Of the COLLINS
Company, which remained in ignorance OF
the infringement, incredible as 1t may seem,
for period of twenty-three years. The
AMEs shovels were packed ct the factory 80
that the mark could not be seen, and the
packages were exported unopened. None
were sold for use in the United States. II
also appeared that, although over G0O,000 OF
the shovels bearing the COLLINS mark had
been sold by the AHEs Company, they had
never listed this implement in their catalogue
The way in which the AMEs Company first
came to use the COLLINS mark was some
what peculiar. In 1s49 the tools of the Col
Inns Company were much sought after by
tho miners of the Pacific coast, and when the
gold seekers went to Australia, during the
mining excitement of 1851 and the following
years, they took with them the high reputa
ton of these implements. In 1856 an order
for supply OF COLLINS shovcls was for
warded to America, and was sent by the
dealer who received it TO the AMEs Company
The COLLINS Company claimed that this or
der was meant for them; but the AMEs Com
7 pany filled it with their own manufactures
. using the COLLINS mark The shoyols wer,
shipped to Australia, and over since then thu
AMEs Company have had an extensive for
4 eign trade in these implements.
Judge BLATCHFoRD has given judgment il
favor OF the COLLINS Company, granting
: perpetual injunction, with all accounting 70
damages, which arc said to amount to n yer.
0 large sum. Tho fraud perpctrated 50 Ions
A and successfully is not likely to prove pay
ing investment in the end. At the same tim
J, it is a question whether the damages lcgall,
recoverable will compensate the COLLIN
Company, even in slight measure, for tn
: injury indirectly inflicted upon their rcputa
ton by tho sale of second-clas5 implements
as those of tho AMEs Company are repre-
u sented to be, under their name. Such injur.
: cannot be calculated with sufficient definite
Il ness to obtain adequate redress at law.
- k,