Evening star., 1914-02-08
Confiaaea iron; paSs' g

Scriptive term is said to have acquired a
Secondary meaning that is. ii means first
the article it describes; but, because of long
ISOLATION with the name of a particular
trader, it means also the output Of that
trader.
When one manufacturer has given de
scrIptIve term a secondary meaning, other
manufacturers must distinguish their goods
SO that they do not pass as those of the origi-
nal trader
pEDDAWAY made machine betting in
~ England from the hair of Eastern ami
mails, but principally from camel hair. This
betting had peculiar advantages over leather
betting in countries where the air was hot
and dry. He marked his betting "Camel's
Hair Betting"
a man who had been in his employ for
several wears went into the manufacture of
hair betting on his own account, and put out
a product that in its general nature was eX-
actl- the same as Reddaway's betting. The
newcomer at first called his betting "Arabi-
an AS he came into competition with his
former employer, however, he found that
there was large demand for the @Camel's
Hair" brand, and in some cases marked his
betting with the figure of camel or with the
words "Camel's Hair, in order to take con
tracts from Reddaway. From this he grad,-
ally began to mark all his betting "Camel's
Hair Betting
There were other manufacturers who
made this betting Some of them called it
Buffalo" betting; some yak belting
some Crocodile betting. In all cases the
composition was practically the same.
Reddaway found that his former employee
was taking much of his trade, and brought
an action to enjoin him from marking his
III, p,1 Nln
was fought through all the English courts,
and was important because the courts de-
cided that while man could not be pre-
vented from using term that was actually
descriptive of his product, in the present
case "Camels Hair Betting had come to
have a secondary meaning. That is to say,
"Canel's Hair Betting" in the trade denoted
not only betting made of camels hair,
but also that made by one particular
manufacturer, Reddaway His competitor
knew this, and when the latter marked his
betting "Camels Hair Betting, without any
explanatory remarks or without his own
his betting off as Reddaway's. Therefore,
the former employee was enjoined from
marking his goods "Camel's Hair Betting
without using such additional marks as
would distingui h it from Reddaway's
As no manufacturer is entitled to any ex-
elusive rights in color or descriptive
phrases, neither is he, in the absence of
patent, entitled to exclusive rights in the
physical form in which he makes his goods.
Granted that product is not patented, any
one may manufacture it in that form which
has proved to be best adapted for purposes
OF commerce and utility.
In a resent case one manufacturer OF
vacuum cleaning machines claimed that an
other manufacturer was guilty of unfair
competition, because the second firms ma
chimes were identical in form with those OF
the first concern. Upon trial, however, it
was shown that the form and materials used
by both manufacturers had by experience
been shown TO be the best adapted for house
hold vacuum machines. There was no pat
ent on the machines, and the courts said
that any manufacturer was entitled to make
his goods in that form which was most eco
nomical and most likely to find purchasers.
In this particular case the markings and the
nameplates on the machines were entirely
different and there was no unfair com
petition.
On the other hand, when articles or pack
ages are made in particular form, simply
to give them distinctive appearance and
in order TO identify them, no other manu-