The Portland daily press., 1895-04-25
A PECULIAR CASE.
And Judge Webb Settled 1t in a Pecu.
liar Way.

4, liar Way.
Their Shocks in the Mary Jenness
without Remaining But Required
Il Them to File a Bond to Protect j. I'll
4 Hamlen s. Son In Case An Infringe
ment of Trade Mark is Proved Later.
In the United States Court yesterday
afternoon before Judge Webb, occurred
the hearing of the bill in equity brought
by J.H. Hamlen Il Son, against George
S. Hunt & Co., to enjoin the latter from
loading the schooner Mary Jenness with
shocks bound for Martinique, on the
There were present Messrs. George S.
Hunt, Arthur K. Hunt and Fred E. Allen,
of the firm of George 8. Hunt Co., Their
counsel, Messrs. BID. II. M.sVerrill,
Messrs. J. H. and JIG. Hamlen of the firm
of j. H. Hamlen & Son, and their counsel.
Messrs .Symonds, Snow & Cook.
The hearing was for sthe purpose of de-
termining whether thesinjunction should
be temporary or should be maintained
till the case shall be settled as to wheth-
er there has been an infringement OF
trade mark.
Mr.. David W.Snow opened the hearing
by reading the afidavits of the com.
plants and explaining. their position.
He stated the extent of the plaintiffs
business in Martinique and sGaudaloupe,
which has been built up since 1875 neces.
stating much labor and money, and an
almost annual trip to the islands by
some member of the firm. Mr.. j. H. Ham
len, senior member, has learned by these
trips that certain kinds of shocks are
needed, and certain customs regulations
required, and has therefore manufact-
ured peculiar kind of shook and head
ings of certain hardness of wood. and
thickness and weight. Since about
1875, they have used certain brand put
on by stencil, and by this brand they
are. known among their patrons. sTheir
goods thus have certain reputation for
standard good quality that is valuable.
10y tlIuuC VI UAl5 OlduQ anu ECpubdU1OG
the custom officials know that these
goods are what they represent tc be and
much expense in examination is there
fore saved.
Mr.. j. H. Hamlen's personal affidavit in
cluded the declaration that his shook
and headings were thinner than the
ordinary, and as far as he knew, differ
emit from any other.
The trade mark is an eclipse made by
a dotted line. inside of which, in the
middle, are the French words, bois
DUR" meaning hard wood, and above
them the firm name, j. H. Hamlen &
Son." and below them, Portland, Maine,
U.S.A. just above the eclipse are the
words in small letters, "Trade mark
Registered"
The Inhabitants of these islands, being
mostly French, and unable to speak
English. have learnedsto know this trade
mark as significant of good quality and
as coming from j. Hamlen & Son.
Mr.. Hamlen stated that he hadsreason
to believe that the cargo sof shook sent
out by there in 1894 by George S. Hunt
& Co., had an imitation of bis trade
mark upon them, and the fact that the
shook now loaded in the Mary Jenness
at this port,by that firm had this same
trade mark with the change of names
and the omission only Of the words
"Trade mark Registered caused him
to feel that there was an infringement
upon tis.trade mark and an attempt to
secure thereby the business that he had
been so many years in esta blishing.
The affidavit of Capt. William Leavitt
was read, stating that the schooner
Mary Jenness was being loaded with
shook destined for the island of Martin
ique.
John Hayes, stevedore for j. Il. Ham
len & Son, stated by affidavit that on
the 10Th of April he was on the " hart
between and O'Clock p. M, and saw
these shook being loaded upon the vessel
with this mark upon them.
Stanley Patton, clerk for j. II. Hamlen
& Son, made affidavit that he had seen
the employees of George S. Hunt & Co.
applying this work to the shook with
a stencil.
THE RESPONDENTS AFFIDAVITS.
Mr.. H. NJ. ssVerrill presented the afida-
Wits of the respondents. They deny the
allegations that the plaintiffs make, and
deny that the latter will suffer irrepara-
BILE loss to their businss by the ship
ping of the cargo of shook thus marked.
The respondents do not know that the
compliments have used the trade mark
as stated, or that they have had ex-
elusive trade in said islands, or that said
marks has been a certificate of superior
quality OR of special value in respect TIC
the custom regulations.
1t is not true that in 1894 these re.
spondents placed an imitation of sald
mark upon cargo of shook sent to SAID
islands.
Until this bill of complaint was made
the respondents had no knowledge that
this mark was used by the uomplal ants.
Also that the cargo alleged to be sold
in those islands in 1894 was sold by