The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-10
A DECISION OF REAL INTEREST.

Courts nave to deal with all sorts of
questions. but it is not often that a judicial
decision is rendered Of such peculiar in
dered a few days ago in Louisville. 1t re-
lated to the famous implement known as
the Frankfort reel" and 1t affirmed an
important principle of trademark law.
The suit which gave rise TO the decision
was an application for an injunction by
B.. c. Milan & Co., of Frankfort, to pre-
vent B. f. Meek & Son. of Louisville. from
using the words Frankfort, Kentucky"
or either of said words on reels manu-
featured by them in Louisville. Prelimi-
nary to the decision the court gave a con-
else history of the Frankfort reel from its
first manufacture in 1885 by John f. Meek,
a watch and clock maker of Frankfort,
Ky, to recent years. For many years it
was known as the Meek reel, from the
name of its maker. In 1852 Meek failed
and the Frankfort business was bought at
sheriff's sale by one B. c. Milan. Then
tired from business and never made a reel
after 1852. His brother, B.. f. Meek, and
3. c.. Milan formed a partnership and
continued to manufacture reels at Frank
fort for many years, when they dissolved,
Meek going to Louisville, where he re-
continuing the business at Frankfort. For
a number of years the Meek reel manu-
featured at Louisville b. b. f. Meek &
Sons was stamped with their name, but
finally they changed the stamp to 1.-The
Frankfort, Kentucky, reel" On this state
L. Meek & Son be restrained from stamp
ing their reels as the original Frankfort
reel. The history of the reel as traced
by the court was much fuller than that
here given, and after a learned discussion
of the law of trademarks and citing
numerous cases the court concluded:
The plaintiffs reels have become famous
during a period OF nearly fifty years of eX-
elusive manufacture at Frankfort, Ky.-in
fact they became so popular as to be gem
orally known and subsequently advertised
as the Frankfort, Kentucky, reel" To
allow the defendant corporation to reap
the. benefit of the plaintiffs long and hon
orable course in business by indirectly
ndullkS VI CdlllllH us reel, Dldue III LOUIS
vile, as the Frankfort reel or the
Frankfort. Kentucky, reel'-something
that Ben +. Meek, its assignor, never at
tempted or claimed-would be in violation
Of the broad and equitable rule of fair
trade LAID down in the many authorities
above cited. | am of opinion that the
plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they ask.
The decision only went to the extent of
enjoining the Louisville firm from stamp
ing it's reel as the Frankfort reel. 1t did
not touch the merits of the two implements,
hat the Meek reel. manufactured at Louis
vile, is Just as good as the genuine
Frankfort, which has been manufactured
at that place by Milan continuously from
1S4S to the present time. The court makes
it quite clear that on the dissolution of
the firm of Meek d Milan in 1859, when
Milan took the reel business, the right to
the trademark and name of the Frankfort
reel remained with him. The decision OF
the court included an order that the Louis
Vile manufacturers. who had been using
the stamp Frankfort reel" for more than
fifteen years past, be compelled to disclose
profits and that the plaintiff be given judg-
ment for all profits made by the defendants
on reels manufactured and sold by them in
Louisville bearing the Frankfort trade
say that fish caught with the Louisville
reel stamped Frankfort were illegally
caught. and the order requiring an account
ing for profits does not apply to the fisher
men who have used that reel.