The record-union., 1892-10-08
MECHANICS" VS.. MECHANICAL. ]"
An Interesting Suit Commenced Here
Yesterday.
Weinstock, Lubin & Co. Ask for Heavy
Damages Against Their Neigh
bor. II. Marks.

The papers were filed yesterday by at
| torneys Johnson, johnson & Johnson in
lawsuit the developments and result OF
which will be looked forward to with
much interest. The plaintiffs are Vein
stock, Lubin IL Co., and the defendant is
ii. Marks, who is the proprietor of a
clothing store adjoining that of the plain
tiffs at Fourth and K streets in this city.
In their complaint the plaintiffs state
| that on October 4, 1874, II. Weinstock and
ID. Lubin entered into a copartnership
under the firm name of Weinstock d
Lubin, and engaged in business at 4O4 K
street in this city. That they adopted the
name of mechanics Store' for their
place of business, fixed price upon each
article, which was not deviated from, and
lnaugurated country order department.
They advertised their business very ex-
tensively, and, by their skill and strict
attention to business, built up great
trade in the States and Territories.
In January, 1888, the firm of Vein
stock 81 Lubin conveyed to plaintiffs all
the property of the firm, with the good
VIII OF the same: The business was con-
Quoted under the firm name of Vein
stock, Lubin & Co., and by care, atten-
tlon, skill and strict adherence to busi-
ness rules, materially increased the vol
ufne and importance and value of said
business.
In the year 1891, it is alleged. the busi-
ness OF plaintiffs had increased to such
enormous proportions, because of the
confidence of the people in the firm, as to
require increased facilities, and there was
erected the building known as 400 to 4l2
X street. The style of the building, es-
peclally the arrangements Of the lower
noor, and its relation to the sidewalk
there being an arcade or covered walk
was adopted by the plaintiffs for the
beneht OF their customers, aud as distin-
gushing mark for their business. So far
as the Pacific Coast is concerned, it was a
new and original device, and was in
tended for the attraction of patronage
1t IS alleged that in 1885 the defendant,
who had previously been engaged in
business elsewhere, and who had no
established reputation of his own, and
whose business was unknown to the trade
and general public, removed his business
to 4l4 X street, Immediately adjoining
the premises of plaintiffs, where he en-
gagged in similar business. In 1887 he
gave his store the name of mechanical
Store" In 1892, designing and intending
fraudulently to injure plaintiffs, TO APP
propriate to himself and pirate upon
piolih1ii1S tIdu6y 70 confuse ln0 pubic
mind and fraudulently attract business.
defendant constructed at Ala K street a
bulldlng that is copy of that of plaintiffs
ana, so far as the lower floor is concerned,
initiated and copied that of plaintiffs. 1t
is alleged that this was done with corrupt
design, and that many of plaintiffs Gus
toners were deceived.
1t Is further alleged that defendant car
RED out system of deceit; that he repre-
sented to patrons that his store was the
store of Welnstock IL Lubin, and Vein
stock, Lubln " Co.; that it was the "Me-
chanics' Store'-meaning the store of the
plaintiffs-that it was branch of the
Mechanics Store" If a patron of
plaintiffs by mistake entered the store, he
would be told by defendant or his en-
ployes that he was in the store of plaintiffs,
and would be fraudulently induced to
purchase goods.
Plaintiff s allege that defendants meth
DDS of doing business were not similar to
those adopted by plaintiffs. Defendant
did not adhere to one price, but altered
the price of goods to suit the convenience
OF customers. Many people have been
imposed on in this way, to the great in
jury of plaintiffs business reputation.
There is no sign or anything in front of
defendants store, it is alleged, to desg-
nate that it is the store of H. Marks.
Plaintiffs claim to have been greatly
Injured in business and business reputa-
ton, and pray that preliminary injunc-
ton issue forthwith, restraining the de-
fendant from, enjoining and restraining
the defendant from doing or attempting
any of the acts complained of; from
representing his store to be the "Me-
chanics' Store" or Weinstock, Lubin
u Co.
1t is also asked that the Injunction be
made perpetual, and that defendant be
required to designate his store by some
other name than mechanical Store"; that
he be required to alter the front, ex-
terror and outward appearance of his
store as to make it different from the
building of plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also asks for Judgment for
S25, 600 for damages sustained, cost of suit
and such further and different relief as to
equity may appertain.