Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-08-08

Il
/ Judge Robinson's court a bill for per
petual Injunction to prevent the Arc,
tic Soda Works from using trade.
marks and labels alleged to be spur
| iOus and counterfeit limitations of those
Invented and owned by the Pinectal
Company
Damages in the sum of $1,000 are
asked and the complainant asks also
that the defendant company be made
to pay over to the Pinectar company
all the profits accruing from business
done because of the alleged imitation
of the trademarks and devices.
Papers were served this morning
upon G. S. Leithead and Roy A. Wood
ward, partners doing business as the
Arctic Soda Works. Attorney Alexan-
der Lindsay is handling the case foI
the Pinectar Company.
Aside from the allegations made by
the complainant, the case has decid-
eddy interesting legal aspects. 1t is
said to be the first time such a suit
has ever been filed in local courts and
the first local test of the copyright
principle.
The complaint says:
The undersigned, the Pinectar Com
pany, Limited, a Hawaiian corpora.
ton, having it's principal place OF
business in Honolulu, City and Coun-
ty of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii,
complaining of Gladstone S. Leithead
and Roy A. Woodward, doing business
as partners under the firm name and
style of Arctic Soda Works, in Homo.
lulu aforesaid, says:
i. That ii, the complainant, is, and
for many years last past has been,
the manufacturer of pineapple bevt
erage known as "Pinectar," which ii
has, during all said time, offered for
sale and sold in glass bottles labeled
with its own proper labels, devices,
trade-names and trademarks, all OF
which were composed, invented and
adopted by complainant for that pur-
pose, a copy of which label, device,
trade-name and trademark is hereto
annexed, and forms part of this COM
plant, marked Exhibit Al
2. That by reason of the knowl-
edge, long experience and great care
of the complainant in its said bust
ness, and the good quality of said
Pinectar SO manufactured and sold
by it as aforesaid, the same has be-
come widely known in the community
as a valuable and useful beverage
and has acquired a high reputation
as such and has commanded, and still
commands, an extensive sale through.
out this territory and elsewhere.
which is, and has been, a source of
great profit to the complainant.
3. That said beverage Is known to
the public and to the buyers and con-
sumers thereof by said name of SPIN
ectar" and by the complainant's own
proper tables, devices, trade-names
and trademarks aforesaid
A. That, notwithstanding the long
and quiet use and enjoyment by COM
plainant of said name, liable, device,
trade-name and trademark, the res
pondents, well knowing the premises,
wilfully, wrongfully and unlawfully
disregarding the rights of this COM
plainant, have, for a long time past,
to-wit, for period of over six months
last past, wilfully, wrongfully, unlaw
fully and fraudulently prepared and
offered for sale and sold, and always
have and still do offer for sale AMI
sell at said Honolulu and elsewhere
throughout said Territory of Hawaii,
a pineapple beverage called Pine
apple Nectar" which said Pineapple
Nectar is in imitation of complainant's
"Pinectar," which, with intent to de-
ceive and defraud the public and the
buyers and consumers thereof, and to
injure and defraud this complainant,
they have put up or caused to be put
up in similar packages, to-wit, in glass
bottles labeled with nearly similar Ia
bells, device, trade-names and trade
marks; of which false and nearly SIM
liar labels, devices, trade-names and
trademarks specimen or copy is
hereto annexed and made part OF
this complaint, marked Exhibit B."
5. That said last mentioned and
nearly similar label, device, trade
name and trademark is fraudulent,
and spurious imitation of
the compliments label, device, trade
name and trademark, and that re-
spondents have, and at all times when
selling or preparing any of said imi-
tation of said Pinectar, have had full
and are, and have been, adj
yised and informed that the said imi-
tated label, device, trade-name and
is, and has been, pirated
or simulated and fraudulent counter
felt OF the label. device, trade-name
and trademark composed and adopted
by this complainant as aforesaid; all
of which will more fully appear by
reference to the exhibits hereto an
nexed and nereinbefore referred to.
6. That said imitation is caiculat-
ed 10 deceive the purchasers and con-
of "Pinectar", and has misled,
and still does mislead. many of them
to buy the article sold by respondent
in the belief that it is the article man
ufaetured by said complainant, greatly
10 the diminution of the business and
profits of said complainant.
That the beverage so put up and
sold as aforesaid by said respondents,
in imitation OF eomplainant's beyer-
lge, is of a greatly inferior quality.
That by reasen of the premises the
has been damaged to The
amount of five thousand dollars
$4,000 0tl