Court Opinion

ID: 9644155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:49:04.515558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:50.218417
License: Public Domain

VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judge.
I fully concur in the disposition of this ease made by Judge STONE’s excellent opinion, and, in the main, in the reasons assigned for the conclusion reached. It is clear, as he says, that the ease falls primarily under section 99, title 15, USCA, with a portion of the relief asked provided in section 100. I cannot agree, however, that, under the facts in this case, appellants have failed to show the affixing of such trade-mark to and upon the receptacles of merchandise used in interstate commerce. Appellees systematically used containers, procured from another party, upon which the prohibited term “Iron-ite” was stenciled. They did this with full knowledge and with intent to deceive as to the origin of the commodity. In such ease the spirit of the statutory requirement is satisfied as fully as though the infringing label had been manually affixed by appellees themselves. I think this construction finds substantial recognition in the decision of the Supreme Court in Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U. S. 689, 43 S. Ct. 244, 67 L. Ed. 464, 26 A. L. R. 567.