The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-05-05
). o.-.,,, corn.,.n i an Enrlish 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 oiten
that an enterprising American receives kindly
consideration by an English journal, but the
following from the Sheffield England DAILY
Telegraph, of April 10, places Mr.. Jordan
and his mandatory before the people OF
England and the United States in different
nosition from that assumed by the attorneys
of Jealous competitors. Following is the
article:
THE AMERICAN CANE OUT AHEAD.
marks act Because OF the absence of
intention Messrs Charles Chambers q Co. YESTERDAY
failed in the second OF the prosecutions they nav
instituted for the protection OF their marx "A l.
The prosecution against w. Humphreys y Co lnileu
because there was abundant proof Of MI Hnmpil-
reys' innocence; the charge against Mr. A. Jordan
broke down because there was no evidence of an
ofense. The technical offense alleged against MT.
Jordan 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. Stipendiary
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.. Jordan's mark does not appear
to have been calculated or intended 70 deceive ~
was bona fde mark Of his own; and 1t was not
put forward with any intention of inducing the
public to believe thatthe cutlery of Nj. Jordan was
The cutlery of Messrs Chambers. There was no
reason why Mr.. Jordan should endeavor to steal the
fame OF his neighbors seeing that his own character
and the reputation of his own manufactures stanu
so high Ii may not be known generally that MI.
Jordan is an American manufacturer who has
brought important and improving business 10
Sheffied He has brought to the town large trade,
which otherwise would not have come here He
employs a large number of hands who, otherwise,
would not have found work in Sheffield, except oy
displaeing q corresponding number. He haruiy
completes with any local firm, inasmuch as the trade
he has brought to the town is now. so far as shet
eld Is concerned the efeaIloh 81 ms 1h vome
of trade Mr. Jordan's object in coming to Sheiaesd
was to supply his customers in America with me
finest pocket cutlery that Sheffield could produce
under his own superintendent. We are given TO
understand that the cutlery sent out by Mr. Jordan
the desire by citizens OF the United States to carry
Sheffield blade in their pockets. Had Mr.. Jordan
been as dishonest as he Is smart man OF g
Louis and falsely marked his goods as OF shetheld
make. He, however chose the honest poncy Of
setting up his factory in Sheffield. This is to Shelf
fields ADVANTAGE He is stranger within our gates,
He has not come empty; handed 70 seek favour.
of the town. lie has come bringing his sheayes
with him, bringing employment and trade, Drlng-
ing money in the shape oil weekiy %asi and 10 hs
not abused the name OF Shefheld. we question
whether any cutlery manufacturer N me Town
would object to have his name on the thousand an.
dozens orpocket-knive seized by the detective ON
Ger who was sent to perform the odious errand OF
searching the factory OF this honest and reputable
we have no other regard than what may be enter
tanned for an epterpriSing creator OF INDUSTRY Who
has been taken at disadvantage. Il may be asked
why did not Mr. Jordan register his marx OF TWO
big "a - little IA, and figure one 1t was his
registered trade mark i'll America though we gather
from what was said by the advocates engaged in
the case it could not be registered IN England.
But the native admission was made by Mr.. Cham
bers that he did not think the "A L mark OF MS
client could be registered now II is, however,
corporate mark registered before the act oil 1872.
Therefore MessFs, Chambers are entitled 70 NE
fullest protection they can SECURE, We 90 noE
for the manner Of their procedure. II would haye
been more in accordance with the merits OF the
case had they proceeded by way OF injunction 10
test the Likeness Of Mr. Jordan's American mark 70
MesSrs. Chambers Sheffield mark. The issue IN
this case was not one of fraud hut of disputed right
Mr. Jordan has certainly done nothing 10 Justiiy the
extreme course of seizing his goods and dragging
him before the courts on a criminal charge. HIS
"a "A /" 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 q mark would confuse the two. AT
the same time we adhere to our oftexpressod opin-
that Mr. Jordan has eectually 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 other of the wondrous wild
fowl, strange fish, or queer cattle which nature
seems 10 have provided Tor the use Of mqnufactHr-
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 scant
courtesy in the manner Of his Impeachment be has
found in British Conytot Justice Justice null and
fFee-thnqgh not gratqitoHs.