The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-07-30
BEER LABELS SACRED.
Vice Chancellor Van Fleets Deci-
sion Against the Eagle Bot.
thing Company.
Special to the jersey city Neps.

TRENTON, July 80, 1S92.-The opinion Of
the Court of Chancery filed by Vice
/ Chancellor Van Fleet in two suits insti-
tuted recently. is of interest to all manu-
| facturers and trades in New Jersey, as
defining their rights to protection against
stimulation and counterfeiting of their
trade labels, especially as it is the first
decision ever rendered by the Chancery
Court Upon the questions involved. p.
Ballantiue and Sons operate a lager beer
brewery in Newark under the name of
Balantipe & Co., and much of their beer
when bottled is designated by their ''Pale
Extra'' label.
William Writ, a bother of beer, puts
up large quantities of Ballantine's beer
| under the names OF "Pale Extra Cham
payne Beer" Export Beer" and .Ex-
port Select" under three labels bearing
those names, and well known to dealers
and consumers throughouB the country.
In February last the Eagle Bottling Com
pany was incorporated, one of its incor-
porators being a former employe of
Wirtz, and commenced in Jersey City the
business of bottling the beer of the Lem
beck & Betz Eagle Brewing Company,
and used on their bottles four different
labels, each of the same size, color and
Suhp0 dS abu0 COI1cSpOuuluk OHSS Ol LIE
Ballantine and Wirtz, with the same
names OF beer printed in similar type and
color. and in the same relative position
and arrangement, n differing only in
the bottlers and brewers and the trade
MARKS of the latter.
DAMAGE SUITS.
The Ballantines and WirtZ began suits
against the Eagle Bottling Company to
enjeip the use of these labels. alleging
that&hey were calculated to deceive the
publicand interfered with t~heir-eXclu-
siye right to use their labels, which were
the FIRST in the market. The Bottling
Company resisted this claim. but the
Court said: 1t clearly appears that the
defendant has invaded che complainanJs'
right.s And in regard to the labels,
Wirtz objected to said: Sin their aitrac-
tive features and prominent characteris-
tics the two sets of labels have the same
general appearance. and SO closely re-
semble each other that, to the eye of the
ordinary observer, the. one may be easily
mistaken for tins other.
"Fh differences are so slight as not to
be discovered at d glance. but to require
an effort by attention or observation.
The use of the defendants labels con-
s~titutes q plain violation of the COM
plainants' rights. 1t is difficult to be-
been made so near an exact copy in all
their special characteristics of another
set without an effort at stimulation. An
Injunction will be granted"
THE LAW OF LABELS.
The Court establishes the following
principles of Iaw:-"The law protects
labels tor the Same reasons and in pre-
cisely the same way that it protects
trade marks. No dealer shall be per-
mitted to sell his goods on tie reputation
which another dealer has established in
the market for his goods. nor adopt the
LABEL of another dealer, or one so near
it as to lead the public to suppose chat
the article to- which it is affixed was
put upon the market by such other
dealer;' and in the course of his opinion
the Vice Chancellor says: "While the.
markets are open and free TO all, and fair
competition should be encouraged, stiff
every dealer must, be required, for the
protection of the public D 10 promote
fair dealing,ato depend for his; success
upon his own reputation and the quail
ty of his own productions. If he were
allowed to deal under false colors, aud
sell his productions for those of others,
the result would be chat he would not
only cheat the public. but also defraud
him whose right place III the market he
filed with spurious goods. Such compe-
tition would not be fair coii1petition; 1t
would be closer akin 10 piracy"