an exolualvedealershiplr #oughtto be glv6n ~a ooveredby pa- tenta,oopyrightaor tradsmrrks. In 29 Texan Jurlrprudenoe768, we find the follow* statomntr
"On the other hand the owner of an articlepro- tectedby a patent,oopyrlghtor tradenmrk,when he hu mrpufMtured and sold the 8NM, mry nQt lmpossireatria- tlona upon the buyer an to future srlem. When owner- ship is partedwith, the rrticleentersthe ohennelaof tr@e and ie thereafterbeyond the ooatrolof the pro- Hon. Tom Se.y, Page 3 (OpinionBo. O-3322)
prietorof the monopoly."
In Xrtiaal Automatic MaohinoCconpany v. Smith, 32 8.U. (26) 678, Th&Auetin Court of Civil Appeale kad before it a contract peoulirrlysimilarto the one umder oonsideration here. In that caeo the I?ationalAutomaticMachineCompanyhad entered into a con- tra& with Smith whereby it grantedto him the exolualvsderlorehip for sixty-twoaountiesof certaincoil operatedboxing amusementdevises kaown w 'K.O.Pightere". The contractwae for a period of five years, and the HationalAutoMtic MachineCompanyhad epplledfor l&tore pa- tentomthemachines. The oourt declaredeold contractto be in viola- tion of the Texas Anti-trustInwe. We quote at 8ome langthfrom the opinion:
"But appellantcontendsthat since the ctintraot show61 ltwos amignee of patent rightia to the merchPndieesold to appellee,it had the right to make such restriotions,or to grant such excluslve.righteto its vendee ae it might coo fit and proper,vendee PgreSlngthereto; and that such reotxictitmeamd rights grantedwere not in violationof the anti-trustlawe of thle state. In this oonteationap- pellantrelies upon the rule announcedby thle court in the case of Coos-Cola00. v. State (Tex.Civ. App) 225 S.W. 791, 793, tbatr 'Theowner of I patent right,copy- right, or trade&k, having excluraive right to manufacture and salZVtihearticleprotectedthereby,and being under no legal obligationto grant such right to another,may impose upon hi& assigneesuoh restriotionePO he may eee proper, and t&which his aesigneewill agree, lmoludingthe price .t which the articlemay be cold, the territoryin which It may be laraufaotured tid mold, the m&aria1 that may be used in It& manufacture,or in oonuectlontherewith.'
"But that rnle ha8 no appliootionto the contract here Involved,because it does not relate to the petent right or to e merohmdiae sold in connectionwith the patent right,but relates to merchandieemanufactured and actuallysoldunde~rpend~ patentwhiohappcllant assertedin the contractit is owner. The cam is there- fore oontmlled by the furtherrule announcedin the OOOP- Cola Case that: 'The owner of M articleprotectedby a patent,copyright,or trade--k, when he hae manufactured and sold the~sune,cannot imposerostri&ione upon his ven- dee .a to the future sole of the BUILC.Having partedwith his ownerehlptherein,it enters the chennelsof trade a8 an articleof ccmmeroe,end ie theretiterbeyond b.iacontrol.'
"The dlatlnctionbetweenthese ruloa iB clearlypointed out in the Coca-Colacaeo and the authoritiesthere cited, and meads no discussionhere. Hon. Tom Seay, Page 4 (OpinionNo. O-3322)
"Nor can appellant'8contentionbe sustainedthat It appearedfrom the pleadingsthat the contractsued upon wee one involvinginterstateoanrmerce.The con- trary clear4 appears,becausethe restrictionsImposed apply to acts of the vendee in the aale of the merohan- disc after the interetateconuneroe transactionsinvolved had been completed. As above pointedout, the contract of purchasewas completedwhen the merohandisewee de- liveredto lppellee,and no other interstatecommerce transactioncould have been Involvedunder the terms of the contract. Thereforethe restrictions which appliedto acts of appelleeto be performedafter all interstateoommercetransactionsceased