Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-05-05
AS TO TRADE-M MARKS.
IMPORTANT OPINION HANDED DOWN
IN THE 4. $. APPELLATE COURT.
GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS CAN'T Be USED
The Right to the Word Pocahoutns
scttied-Cierk MeIouey Receives
Requests from All Parts of the
County for Copies Of the Opinion.

Few opinions that have been handed
down In the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals OF late have aroused such
general interest as that in the case of w.
II. Coffman. appellant. against Samuel
Cashier. JT.. and Henry Il. Curran, APP
| pellees, argued November Sth last year.
This opinion. which was written by
judge Cor, was handed down on Tues
day, and was issued in pamphlet from
yesterday afternoon.
/ The case came up In the court upon
| an appeal from an injunction order is
sued in the Circuit Court of the United
| States for the District of West Virginia.
/ restraining w. II. Conman, doing bust
ness under the name and style Of Poca-
/ hontas Coke and Coal Company, and also
| w. Ii. Coffman Coke Company, from
using the name Pocahontas.' or "Poca-
| hontas Flat Top in connection with
| his business. The court below held that
the compliments have a right to use
| the said word 'Pocahontas'. for the pur-
pose Of indicating that the coal was from
/ the Pocahontas field, and that they have
| the sole right to use said word as indi-
eating the character OF coal they SELL"
OPINION OF THE JUDGES.
In reversing this decision Of the lower
! court, Judges Golf, Bra-vley. and Pur-
nell, who sat in the case in the Appellate
| Court, say. A trademark is intended to
| designate the origin Of the particular
| article 10 which II is affixed. or to which
| 1t specially refers and it gives notice to
the world who the producer Of that ar
/ ucle was. name may be used for this
/ purpose, or a certain marksor peculiar
device may be employed, provided they
have not heretofore been appreciated
I by others for the same purpose But the
/ right to select such names, marks. and
devices is governed by certain rules and
limitations which have been found and
announced by the courts.
The trademark must therefore be
/ distinctive in its original Specification.
| pointing to the origin Of the art Gle; or II
/ must have become such by association
And there are two rules which are not
TO be overlooked. No one can claim pro-
lection for the exclusive use Of a trade
! mark or trade-name which would prac-
! tically give him a monopoly in the sale
/ of any goods other than those produced
/ or made by himself If he could the pub
Z
/ tected, for competition would be destroy
| ed. Nor can generic name. or a name
merely descriptive Of an article of trade,
| of its qualities, ingredients. or character
! istics, be employed as a trademark, and
the exclusive use Of it be entitled to le-
| gal protection. An original
trademark has an undoubted right 10
be protected in the exclusive use of all
the marks. forms. or symbols that were
appropriated as designating the true
origin or ownership OF the article or ia
brio 10 which they are affixed; but he has
no right TO the exclusive use of any word
letters. figures. or symbols which have
no relation TO the origin or ownership Of
the goods, but are only meant 10 indicate
their names or quality. He has no right
to appropriate a sign or symbol which
from the nature of the fact il Is used
TO signify, others may employ with equal
truth. and therefore have an equal right
to employ for the same purpose.
NOT USE BIOGRAPHICAL NAMES.
"And it is obvious that the same rea-
sons which forbid the exclusive appro-
priation Of generic names or OF those
merely descriptive Of the article manu-
( featured and which can be employed with
! truth by other manufacturers, apply with
| equal force 10 the appropriation OF geo.
graphical names. designating districts of
country. Their nature is such that they
cannot point to the origin personal ORR
/ GIN or ownership OF the articles of trade
10 which they may be applied. They
point only at the place Of production. not
/ to the producer. and could they be APP
propriated exclusively. the appropriation
would result in mischievous monopolies
] Could such phrases as Pennsylvania
! wheat, kentucky hemp Virginia to-
/ bacco.' or Sea-lsland cotton be protect
! ed as trademarks. could any one pre-
vent all others from using them, or from
/ selling articles produced in the districts
| they describe under those appellations, it
would greatly embarrsss trade and Sc
cure exclusive rights TO individuals in that
which is the common right of many. 1t
can be permitted only when the reasons
that lie at the foundation Of the protec-
ton given 10 trademarks are entirely
overlooked. 1t cannot be said that there
is any attempt 10 deceive the public when
one sells as Kentucky hemp. or as Lc-
high coal. that which in truth is such,
or that there is any attempt TO appro-
pirate the enterprise or business reputa-
ton Of another who may have previously
sold his goods with the same description
II is not selling one mans goods as and
for those Of another. Nothing Is more
common than that a manufacturer sehus
his products 10 market. designating them
by the name of the place where they were
made. But we think no case can De
found in which other producers of similar
products in the same place have been re-
strained from the use Of the same name
in describing their goods.
NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.
The court in conclusion says: THE al
legation that the defendant has been en-
gagged in unfair and fraudulent trace Is
not supported by the evidence. III mas
been shown that he was advertising ana
selling 'Pocahontas coal but the tesll-
monv also shows that the coal he so ad-
vertised and sold was in fact from the
'Pocahontas coal-held.' 1t follows that
the representa- tons made by him were
neither fraudulent nor untrue, ana that
he had a lawful right 10 so advertise ana
sell. Ii nowhere appears that he ever
represented to the public that he was
selling the same article sold by complain
ants except as their coal was compIe-
hended by the word Pocahontas, which
also Justly described his own. He sold the
product of the Browning mine, which Is
located adjoining the original mine OF the
Southwest Virginia Improvement COM
many. in the town OF Pocahontas. the
coal from, which is now disposed OF by
the complainants. as 'Pocahontas coal,
and II il proven that both collieries exca-
vate from the same vein. AS 10 the right
of the Browning mine, one OF the Oldest
i'm the field. TO sell its product as 'Poea-
hontas coal there can be no doubt,
"a a, vrouId no unconscionable TO deny