The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-12-15
Under AN INJUNCTION.
The Savannah Soap Works Charged
With Infringement of Trade Marx.

The Savannah Soap Works Charged
With Infringement of a Trade Marx.
One Of the most important injunction
suits ever brought before Savannah court
was argued before Judge Speer in chambers
yesterday afternoon by William @. Hender-
son, Esq, a patent attorney of Washington
D. C.
It was the case of James Armstrong & Co.
| Of Baltimore against the Savannah
Soap Works for an infringement Of regis
tered trademarks 1l,0S6 aud 1851, claim
| ing that certain brands of soap manu-
| featured by the local corporation is an imi-
tation OF those OF the Baltimore concern.
The petition Is a lengthy one, and names
William Hone, president Of the Savannah
Soap Works, and the board Of directors as
defendants.
After considering the case carefully,
Judge Speer passed the following order:
at is ordered that the defendants and
each Of them show cause on Jan. IL, 1892
unless sooner ordered by the court, why a
writ of injunction should not be
issued as prayed for. and mean
while a temporary injunction is
granted restraining each of the defendants
from affixiug to soap by impression on same
or by means OF labels or wrappers or other
wise imparting or essociating with the rep
resentations two horseshoes with the heels
together, or tbs use of the words Racket
Bracket, Rocket, or any other trade mark
or word substantially the same as the two
horseshoes or the word Racket secured to
complainant"
The papers enjoining the soap works will
be served this morning. The suit was
brought by w. G. Webb, general manag-
ing agent for the southern states for Arm
strong 81 Co. He produced before Judge
Speer samples OF the soap made here, show
ing it to be on the two horseshoe order and
also the wrappers and labels which ara
identical with those of Armstrong g. Co.,
except, OF course. as to the wording.
Mr.. Webb and Attorney Henderson have
been in the city several days securing evil
dences Of the alleged infringement of the
Baltimore trade mark. but declined to talk
on the subject until the court passed upon
the injunction petition.
| A MORNING NEWS reporter had o talk
| with Mr.. Webb last night about the intunc-
! ton suit and the causes which led TO it.
The facts Of the case" said Mr.. Webb,
ARE about as follows. In 1884 Armstrong
& Co. of Baltimore trade marked the shape
OF cake Of laundry soap representing two
horse shoes with their heels together. After
a very large outlay, both in money and
| labor, the firm has created demand in the
states Of North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi
largely in excess of any other brand OF soap
on the market. In fact, can safely say
| that in quite a number of the largest cities
in Georgia and Alabama we sell five times
as much horse shoe as all other brands Of
soap on the market.
"From this state of affairs" said he, 1--WE,
as manufacturers, expected to encounter
trouble in the shape OF limitations, and we
have had no cause Of complaint in this
respect The first serious imitation of
| our double horse shoe soap was
made by James O. Kirk & Co. of Chicago,
the largest soap manufacturers in the
United States, and perhaps the world, but
when the matter Of their interference with
our vested rights in references to our trade
mark was called TO their attention, they
| promptly withdrew their soap, the "Big
Wash" 80 far as the shape was concerned,
from the market. Since then quite num-
Der of small concerns. both north and south.
have and are initiating our Horse Shoe"
soap.
1.-THE most fragrant case, however, said
Mr.. Webb, ''is that for which we have to-
day obtained q restraining order from the
United States court in Savannah. Our
complaint against the Savannah SoapWorks
also covers an infringement on our Racket
soap, and to further complicRte the
matter / found upon my arrival
in this city that the local company
was initiating our registered trade mark
brand, and stamping and printing the
name Of some of our customers upon the
soap and wrapper. Not wishing to involve
the jobbing trade in the expense of defend
ing law suit. and deeply regretting the
necessity Of even bringing their names into
what we cannot but help designating tricky
business, we have instructed our attorney
Mr.. Henderson, to rotifye the concerns
handling the goods, requesting them to de-
sist.
The letters mentioned by Mr.. Webb in
his interview were written TO Herman N.Y.
ers, president Of the Savannah Grocery
Company, requesting him to withhold from
the market all the soap he had in stock
bearing upon it the horse sho3 representa-
ton, to NJ Ferst's Sons & Co. making q
similar reque;t regarding the bracket"
soap sold by them, and to
Decker & Fawcett, regarding the
Rocket" and Horse Shoe' brand. The
letters state that Armstrong & Co. propose
holding ali persons making further sales of
these soaps to an accounting for damages,
and will also prescott all further infringe.
ments. The firms named are given until
noon to-day to make a reply acQuiescing to
the request. under penalty of having q bill
OF CO npleint filed against them in the
United States court. spH@
The suit against the Savannah Soap
Works is one Of the first of its character
brought in Savannah in years. II Arm
strong q Co. succeed in securing a perman-
ent injunction in January against the soap
works suit for damages will probably be
filed for the alleged infringement.
WARM FOR DECEMBER.