The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-05-05
! oarroll coup,ian in an Englisn court.

Mr.. A. ]. Jordan, formerly of this county,
but now in the cutlery business at St. LOUIS,
was recently sued in an English Court for the
violation Of trade mark. 1t is not oiien
that an enterprising American receives klndiy
consideration by an English Journal, put tne
following from the Sheffield (Englandl Daiiy
Telegraph, of April 10, places Mr.. JORDAN 2
and his mandatory before the people OF
England and the United States in different
position from that assumed by the attorneys
Of Jealous competitors. Following IS the
article:
THE AMERICAN CAME OUT AHEAD.
Intention is the essence of an ofiense under inc
merchandise marks act Because of the absence OF
intention Messrs. Charles Chambers & Co. yesterday
failed in the second of the prosecutions they have
instituted for the protection OF their marx a.,
The prosecution against W humphreys y 70; nrrrSu
reys' innocence the charge against Mr.. A. j. JORDAN
broke down because there was no evidence OF ~
offense The technical offense alleged against MI
Jordan was not sustainable even on the complain.
ants statement and the case was dismissed without
the accused manufacturer being called on TO say
single word in his defense. The Stpendiary
inquired for some one who had been deceived ana
there was none. There are several good reasons
why the proceedings should not have been taken.
and having been taken. why the charge should NOT
be entertained. Mr.. Jordans mark does not appear
to have been calculated or intended to deceive; y
was bona fide mark of his own; and 1t was not
put forward with any intention of inducing tue
pnblic To believe that The cutlery of Mr. Jordan
ih cu, ~ If Messrs Chambers There was no
reason why Mr. Jordan should endeavor to steal the
fame of his neghbors seeing that his own character
and the reputation of his own manufactures stanu
so high. IL may not be known generally that MI.
Jordan is American manufacturer who has
brought an important and improving business 10
Sheffield He has brought to the town large trade,
which otherwise would not have come here. he
would not have found work in Sheffield except by
displacing corresponding number; He hardiy
completes with any local firm, inasmuch as the tTade
he has brought to the town is now, so far as Shei
field is concerned, the creation of his own brains
and energy and is actual addition to the volume
of trade. MIR. Jordans object in coming to Sheffield
was Ia supply his customers in America with the
finest pocket cutlery that Sheffield could produce
under his own superintendent. We are gwen 70
understand that the cutlery sent out by Mr. Jordan
Is a credit to Sheffield, and is calculated TO extend
the desire by citizens OF the United States to carry
been as dishonest as he is u smart man of business,
he might have continued his manufacture at 81
Louis and 1sey mrrke Sos ms 6e 6onet pocV of
setting up his factory in Sheffield. This is to Shef
fields advantage. lie is stranger within our gqtes,
He has not come empty ,handeq 20 seek layonr.
He has come rather as benefactor to the artisans
of the town. lie has come bringing MS sneaVeS
with him, bringing employment and trade; bring
ing the promise of more grist to the mill. he mas
not abused the name OF Sheffield We question
whether any cutlery manufacturer i'll the town
would object TO have his name on the thousand
dozens ofpocket knives seized by the detective OH
Ger who was sent to perform the oalo9s erranG Ii
of high-class cutlery. For Mt JORDAN
we have no other regard than what may pc enteF-
tanned for an epterprsing creator Of INDUSTRY Who
has been taken at disadvantage. II may be asked
why did not Mr.. Jordan register his mark OF two
big "A IS" little "a" and figure one! 1t was his
registered trade mark in America, though we gather
from what was said by the advocates engaged IN
the case it could not be registered in England
beers that he did not think the "A T. mark of his
client could be registered now. 1t is, however, a
corporate mark registered before the act OF $50.
Therefore, MessTs, Chambers are entitled 70 the
fullest protection they can SECURE; we 90 MOI
blame them for proceeding against MI JORDAN, hnt
for the manner of their procedure. II would pave
been more in accordance with the merits Of the
case had they proceeded by way of injunction 10
test the Likeness of Mr.. Jordans American mark 70
Messrs Chambers Sheffield mark. The issue IN
this case was not one of fraud but of disputed right
Mr. Jordan has certainly done nothing 10 justify the
extreme course of seizng his goods and dragging
him before the courts on a criminal charge HIS
"A A l" is not sufficiently like "A l" to deceive
the Stipendiary of Sheffield, and it is questionable
whether any person with sufficient discrimination
to be guided by mark would confuse the two. AT
the same time we adhere to our oft-expressod opin
ion that trade marks should be distinctive and now
that Mr. Jordan has efectually vindicated his char
acter and his rights it might be worth his while to
consider whether he could not with advantage add
to his mark some one or other of the wondrous wild
fowl, strange fish, or queer cattle which nature
seems 10 haye provided Tor the use Of manufactnr-
ers III search Of bold and original idea IN trade
marks. In the meanwhile it IS matter Of PRIDE
and pleasure that, although he has received seant
courtesy in the manner of his impeachment, he has
found in british Court of Justice Justice full and
fTee-thpugh not GrAtqitoHs.