Case Name: McLOUGHLIN et al. v. TUCK et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1900-01-17
Citations: 99 F. 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: McLOUGHLIN et al. v. TUCK et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 99
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
McLOUGHLIN et al. v. TUCK et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 17, 1900.)
Copyright — Enjoining Illegal Use of Copyright Notice — Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts.
The jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States to enjoin the issuing, publishing, or selling of articles marked or imported in violation of the copyright laws, is derived solely from Rev. St. § 4903, as amended by Act March 3, 1897 (29 Stat. c. 392), which, by its terms, does not apply to any importation or sale of such articles brought into the United States prior to its passage.
On Motion to Require Witness to Answer Question.
A. Bell Malcomson, for the motion.
Louis O. Raegener, opposed.

Opinion:
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit in equity praying injunction against improper use of copyright notice. This court has jurisdiction to entertain such suit only by virtue of the amendment to section 4963, Rev. St. U. S., which was contained in the act of March 8, 1897. That act, however, expressly provides that it "shall not apply to any importation or sale of such goods or articles brought into the United States prior to the passage hereof"; i. e. prior to March 3, 1897. Inasmuch as the bill does not aver that the acts complained of are concerned with goods or articles brought here subsequent to that date, it would seem that the bill does not aver facts sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of this suit for injunction by the persons complaining. However that may be, it appears from the record that the particular question is put to the witness touching goods shipped to this country in 1896. As to any impressing, issuing, selling, or importing of such goods with improper copyright notice, this court manifestly has no jurisdiction to maintain this suit, and therefore has no jurisdiction to require the witness to answer. Motion denied.