The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-10-22
EXTRACT OF DECISION BY JUDGE GLIDER
SLEEVE

After giving due weight to all he evidence,
and applying thereto the law as above laid
| down, it must he held a. that the name "Jae-
! ger is descriptive of a class of goods we'll
known in the dry goods trade in this country
and in Europe; (2) that the plaintiff and his
| assignors were not The first to use the name
Jaeger as applied to underwear, either in
| the United States or IN Germany; and (3)
that the plaintiff has not the exclusive right
! to use the name Jaeger" to designate under
wear made according to the Jaeger" system.
The following charges in the complaint may
| be stated, in substance, as follows, to-wit.:
That defendant palms off his goods as the
goods Of the plaintiff; that among the goods so
| sold by the defendant were goods with an ad-
mixture of cotton producing an inferior arti-
Gle intending to throw discredit upon the rep
utatton Of plaintiff and on the goods dealt in
| by 1t; that in selling his goods over the coun-
ter, the defendant represents them as the
! same goods sold by DR.. Jaeger's Company
and that the effect Of such alleged imitation,
| sale and advertising is calculated to and does
deceive the purchasers and users of plaintiffs
! goods to buy the goods sold by the defendant
in the belief that they are the said articles
dealt in by the plaintiff
/ II 10 CSldUliSutu DY testimony LldL Jle de-
PENDANT has from time to time ordered from
| Loeb Brothers, and they have manufactured
| for him in Stuttgart Germany, underwear
! containing an admiXture of cotton fiber.
| The amount of cotton used in the ma king OF
| these garments has varied from a small per
centage Of cotton up to upwards of 80 per
! cent. of cotton. These garments, however,
| in color weight and general appearance so
| closely resemble the all-woOl garments made
| after the jaeger system as to make it i'm
| possible for even those who are daily hand
! ling the goods to distinguish the garments
! containing an admixture of cotton from those
which are all wool 1t appears from the tes-
! timony that the underwear containing sub
stantial admixture Of cotton has been desig-
mated Jaeger" underwear by defendant, and
sold as Jaeger" underwear.
The proof shows that the defendant is now
selling, for genuine Jaeger underwear"
goods that are part cotton.
The testimony clearly shows, and it must be
held, that the use OF any but animal fiber,
| and hence the use Of cotton fiber, in the
| manufacture OF underwear is a deviation
from the jaeger system, and cannot be
| employed except in violation of that system
and the rules prescribed by Dr. Jaeger for
| the system OF clothing originated by him The
exclusive use of pure wool in the manufacture
! of underwear upon the Jaeger system is its
most essential feature.
The testimony shows that the plaintiff has
dealt only in underwear made of pure fiber
wool upon the jaeger system; that it has
uniformly and always designated it's under
wear, in some form Of expression, as Jaeger"
underwear, and that it has established large
trade for that article which is valuable to it.
| 1t has qualified right to the name Jaeger"
| as applied to all-wool underwear made upon
| the jaeger system, The plaintiffs right to
| use the name Jaeger" as designating I'M
! derwear made in accordance with the
Jaeger system, is so qualifedly exclusive
that its right to protection of it's use
against lnfringent by others rests upon the
ground that such use by them is an untrue
or deceptive representation.
The application Of the name Jaeger" or
Jaeger System" to underwear containing
an admixture of cotton is an untrue and de-
ceptive representation. and as against such
use the plaintiff is entitled to relief
1t is false representation OF fact, which
tends to confuse the identity of the defend
ants goods, not made after the Jaeger"
| system, with the goods of the plaintiff, made
in accordance with that system, and creates
a dishonest competition detrimental to the
plaintiff.
One of the uses by the defendant of the
name "Jao ger, to designate underwear CON
tanning an admixture of cotton, must be held
to be for the purpose of taking advantage Of
the reputation which the Atwood Jaeger"
underwear have acquired, and Of the name
jaeger" as applied thereto.
The application of the name Jaeger" by
| defendant to goods part cotton tends to de-
ceive the purchasers and users of plaintiffs
| goods, and actually misled them into buying
| the goods sold by de'endant in the belief that
| they were the goods dealt in by the plaintiff
! Moreover, since the goods containing cotton
can be profta0ly sold at a less price than the
Atwood goods, the tendency must be to I'M
fairly divert custom from the plaintiff to the
! defendant.
Upon the grounds set forth, hold that the
plaintiff has shown the defendant guilty Of
unfair competition in advertising and selling.
as genuine Jaeger underwear" underwear
containing a substantial admiSture OF cotton,
and that the plaintiff is entitled to an ac-
counting, accompanied by an injunction.
As to the extent of the Injunction to lie
awarded. l am Of the opinion that the defend
ant should be prohibited from advert sing in
the newspapers or otherwise. or in any way
representing that the underwear sold by
him containing an admixturc Of cotton, is
| Jaeger underwear" or DIR. Jaeger's I'M
darWear," and from so using the words "Jac-
GER or Or Jaeger" in connection with the
word Genuine or any other word or words;
ana from lvertising or representing his said
underwear by any designation containing the
words -Juescr' or 'Dr. Jae ger alone or in
combination with other words.
Do not be humbugged or fooled into wearing
any goods which are guaranteed 70 be as good
or similar 90 the jaeger.