The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1901-01-05

marks and labels were not recognized.
1t is only about 100 years since the
first decisions were made which gave
elusive right to a trademark affixed to
it. After that right came to be secure
a long line Of decisions followed, always
tending to more clearly define the pro-
perty rights of the trademark owner.
Beginning with 1887 a new question
was enjected: Could a man, not the
owner or manufacturer of the goods,
have such right in them that he could
affix label and yet be protected in it's
use? The question was differently
answered by the courts Of the several
states. A number Of cases were
brought before the courts. The Cigar
makers union seems to have been not
only the pioneer, but for the longest
time the only one making the fight,
with the following results:
In May 1887, a suit was brought in
the New York Supreme Court (Bloete
VS.. Simon, 10 Abb. N. c., SS), by the
members of Cigarmakers' union to en-
join the fraudulent use Of their label.
The court granted the injunction. Thus
it will be seen that the very first at
tempt on the part of workmen to get
that protection was granted, whereas
the manufacturers of a century and
half ago had a long fight before they
could induce the court to recognize their
right to a trademark.
In similar case in Minnesota several
months later the court was equally di
vided. In March, 1889, this same court,
by vote of three to two, decided
! against the cigarmakers. On January
; 8, 1888, in another New York case. the
, court decided for the cigarmakers.
Then came a New Jersey case, decid-
; ing against them. A year later anoth-
err case was Won by labor. In June,
! 1890, a Massachusetts case was decid-
ed against the cigarmake-s, which was
followed in 1891 by one in Pennsylvania,
which held the same.
Here is eight cases, four were decid-
ed for capital, three for labor and one
in the court was equally divided, leav-
ing the lower courts ruling to stand,
which had been favorable to labor,
thus making contest of four years
standing even.
The equitable ground Of protection
against fraud had also been success
fully invoked. In such cases the court
would grant the relief asked for on ac-
count of the fraud against the public,
another than because of any recognition
of the right of the party demanding
relief. But this was too uncertain a
remedy to be depended upon.
| In 1889, the unions not caring to take
chances with the conflicting opinions,
began having laws introduced into the
various state legislatures protecting un-
ion labels as such, and affixing "a pen
atty for their violation, as well as
granting injunctive, relief.
These laws were almost Immediately
tested, and the higher courts have held
them valid with perhaps one exception
This history has been rendered neces-
sary to an understanding of the ques-
ton whether a universal label would
be recognized by the courts and pro-
tected from infringement bythem, and
since such question has never been
definitely presented in such form to
any court, we can only reason from
treated similar questions in the past
and by their language in constituting
the union label laws find out which
way they are tending.
Before statutes were passed a mum.
Der Of the states, notably New Jersey
and Massachusetts,, decided against the
unions in positive and clear terms, vel
after the passage of the law, the Judges
in upholding the new statutes used
such arguments in upholding their
views as if believed in when the
prior cases were before them. would
have insured a favorable decision FOL
the Workingmen. This general tend.
ency can also be seen in the decisions
as they become more recent; they are
much broader and more comprehensive
and seem more imbued with an appre.
ciative sense of the modern trade unior
movement.
Thus, in New Jersey, because the
maker of cigars did not put the goods
on the marker in person it was helC
in 1883 that they could not come into
court for protection. Ten years later
the hatters coming in for similar pro.
lection, are told that the mere fact OF
their not putting the goods on the mar.
ket can have no material bearing or
the question, and the protection asked
for is granted.
The statutes passed for the protec
ton of unions treat of unions as pro
ducers of goods rather than distribut
ors, and extends the protection of tn
law from the manufacturer the EN-
ployer) Of the goods to the wage-work
ers whose labor produces them (the EN-
ploye.)
The question now arises: Will tn
courts take the further step in protect
ing the distributor Of goods, the clerk
who sells them, as we'll as the hattie
or tailor. who makes them? A stric
construction of the law as it is worde
would seem to limit the protection G
labels to workmen engaged in produc
ton.
J The New York law says,
\ brand or device, intended to designat
the products of labor of members {
such unions
\ The Illinois law says,
\ trademark, or form of advertisement
were manufactured by such person."