Case Name: Emily Wagner, App'lt, v. Thomas J. Daly, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-02-15
Citations: 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 839
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emily Wagner, App'lt, v. Thomas J. Daly, Resp't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 50
Pages: 839–844

Head Matter:
Emily Wagner, App'lt, v. Thomas J. Daly, Resp't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed February 15, 1893.)
Trade-mark— Originator of use of label.
Plaintiff, since 1883, has used upon her cigar boxes a certain label bearing the head of a pug dog and the words Wagner’s Pug, which label she purchased from the printers who invented and registered the same. Prior to the sales to her and ever since said printers had sold said label without the words to a cigar box manufacturer, and have continued to sell the same to the cigar trade generally as cigar labels. Held, that plaintiff not being the inventor of the label, nor the originator of the word and symbol as a cigar box label, could not claim an exclusive right thereto, or maintain an action to restrain defendant from using said label with the words Pug Cigar thereon.
(Matham, P. J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint.
The facts appear fully in the dissenting opinion.
Charles S. Nisbet (Harvey Booh, of counsel), for app’lt;
Thomas A. Murray.{Z. S. Westbrook, of counsel), for resp’t

Opinion:
Putnam, J.
In Schneider v. Williams, 44 N. J. Eq., 17 Stewart, 391, to which we are referred by appellant, it is held that one to acquire title to a trade-mark " must adopt some mark not in use to distinguish goods of the same class or kind already in the market belonging to another trader." In Van Beil v. Prescott, 82 N. Y., 630, it is held that " to make an exclusive right to use a name or symbol as a trade-mark, such use must be new ; if ever used as applicable to a like article, it cannot be exclusively appropriated." In Selchow et al. v. Baker et al., 93 N. Y., 59, it is determined that " where a manufacturer has invented a new name consisting either of a new word or words in common use, which he has applied for the first time to his own manufacture, he is entitled to be protected."
Plaintiff was not the inventor of the alleged trademark in question. She commenced using it on November 7, 1885. It was invented by Wischt & Smidt, engravers, on August 14,1883, as a cigar label. On September 11, 1883, said firm sent samples of said label all over the country to the cigar trade. They sold the first labels to plaintiff on October 19, 1883, but prior to that time had sold ten labels to one Pople, a cigar box maker of Newark." It also appeared by the evidence of the witness Wischt that from the time said firm originated this label and offered it to the trade they had sold quite a number of such labels to other parties or other cigar box makers for use in the cigar trade.
Hence while plaintiff was not the inventor of the word and symbol in question, neither was she the originator of such word and symbol as a cigar box label. When she commenced using them, they were on sale to the cigar trade -in the country as cigar labels, and at least one lot of such labels had been sold to a cigar box manufacturer. Therefore, under the case of Van Beil v. Prescott, supra, I do not think it appears that plaintiff's use of the symbol and word in question as a cigar box label was new. They were used before her adoption of them as applicable to a like article. Therefore, the plaintiff fails to make out a case showing herself entitled to the exclusive use of the said alleged trade mark.
The plaintiff in fact in this action seeks to prevent the inventors and originators of said device from having the benefit of their invention. Of course, if purchasers from Wischt & Smidt of the labels in question cannot use them the firm are prevented from a further sale thereof.
I think the trial court made a proper disposition of the case, and that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with costs.
Herrick, J., concurs.