The Portland daily press., 1895-11-27
LONG DRAWN SWEETNESS.
DO ssVelyet," ssPurity" and "Satin"
Mean the Same?

The United States Court Room a Temper
airy Confectionery Shop-An Exciting
Local Case Heard Yesterday.
The United States court room resem-
bled confectionery shop yesterday morn
ing On the desk before Judge Webb was
q great pile of choice confectionery. and
the tables of the lawyers were loaded
down, while boxes of various sizes rested
on the floor. Judge Symonds had spec
linens Of the make of Goudy & Kent to
offer to the court-in evidence-and Berry
/, & Upton and Alexander P. Browne of
Boston, had almost as tempting piles of
the make of Herbet L. Hildreth of Bos-
ton. Judge Webb probably never had
such case of lingering sweetness long
drawn out' before him before, and
very likely never will ag ain.
MIR. Browne opened for his client, and
stated his case. In brief the claim is
that Mr.. Hideth for several years manu-
featured and sold molasses candy, put
ting it on the market lin a package of
and alleged that the defendant corpor-
ation put upon the market molasses
candy OF its own manufacture, but in
package SO closely resembling the COM
plainant's that the public are deceived
thereby, and are led to purchase the de-
fendant's goods for the goods of the
plaintiff 1t was admitted that the de-
fendant claims that long before the So
called "Velvet'' candy of the complain
ant was made, Alonzo W.. Langmaid Of
Gardiner, put up molasses candy in much
the same form, and called it "Satin
Kisses. " Cloudy & Kent, it is hardly
necessary to say, term their goods "' Pur-
ity Kisses.
1t was asserted that the complainant
makes tons of candy day. He is now
81, and has been making candy for s
years He claims to have invented in 1881
the idea of wrapping pieces of candy of
uniform shape in waxed manila paper,
with the ends twisted SO as to secure the
package. He did not print anything on
the wrapper for some 10 YEARS. after that
however. After giving detailed history
of Mr.. Hildredth's business career, Mr..
Browne proceeded to relate the alleged
connection of L. A. Goudy, and the firm
(not then corporation) of Cloudy &Kent,
with his goods. Some attempts were
made SO he claimed, by MIR. Cloudy, to
obtain the general agency for the COM
plainant's goods IN this state, but the
matter ended when Mr.. Cloudy wrote the
complainant letter declining the pro-
posed agency, on the grounds that sit
would be all turkey for you and all crow
for u.s." Cloudy & Kent then went largely
into the manufacture OF their tPurity''
goods.
Mr. Brown cited the cases of four per-
sons, Mrs. May E. Stephenson, aged "a,
George f. Bruce, a., Fred j. Grant, 3S
and Conrad j. Whittemore, SO, who
all were deceived 70 such degree that
they mistook the goods of the defendant
for that of the complainant.
The Boston attorney then proceeded to
review the claim of A. w. Langmaid,
that he put up mo.asses candy in exactly
the way Mr.. Hildeth and Cloudy & Kent
do now, for some time, and that in 1883,
he adopted what is practically the style of
label Mr. Hildreth later used Mr.. Browne
argued that Mr.. Langmaid as matter
of fact never did mp molasses candy in
papers, calling it ''Satin" until after the
defendant pur his "Velvet" candy on the
market 1t was not claimed that he
might not have made and sold molasses
candy or even placed the pieces in wrap
pers, but 1t was claimed that there was no
writing on the wrappers, and no mention
of the word Satin" He claimed that
Mr.. Langmaid fisrt used the word "Sar-
inn rs descriptive of brand of molasses
candy in 1884 He further claimed
that even if Langmaid did use the word
"Satin" and did put up candy he claim
ed to have, there was an abdonment of
the trade mark before Mr.. Hildreth
adopted 1t. The claim of 1.-THE complain
ant was stated to be 1.-THE whole world
of molassses candy, waxed paper and
printers ink" being free of ths publics
The complainant asks be enjoined against
the manufacture of goods SO like those
of the complainant in form as to be mis-
taken for his.
At the afternoon session Judge Sy-
monds began his argument for the de-
PENDANT, going deeply into the law of
trade marks. He claimed that Cloudy &
Kent have not adopted the oomplainant's
trade mark 'phoenetically or typographi-
cally." That there is no resemblance
between "Velyet Candy and "Puirty
Kisses" No similarity of words or of
ideas. He denied that anyone could
have really mistaken the one for the
other. Judge Symonds also claimed that