Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

* Id.

TERM OF FOREIGN PATENT. See Limitation of United States Patent by

Foreign Patents Previously Granted. TERM OF PATENT. See Limitation of United States Patent by Foreign Patents

Previously Granted; Particular Patents, 6, 92. TERRITORIAL RIGHTS. See Use and Sale of Patented Articles. TESTIMONY. See Interference, 7; Interference Proceedings in the Patent Office;

Interfering Patents, 4; Oath; Priority of Invention, 2. TIME FOR APPLYING FOR REHEARING. See Interference, 6. TITLE TO PATENT. See Assignments. TRADE-MARKS. 1. DESCRIPTIVE NAME_"COTTOLENE"-The word “Cottolene,” designating a

substitute for lard composed of cotton-seed oil and the product of beef-fat, is not so descriptive of the substance and quality of its component parts that it cannot be used as a Trade-Mark. * N. K. Fairbank Company v.

Central Lard Company, 159. 2. INFRINGEMENT—"COTTOLENE" AND COTTOLEO—The use of the word “Cot

toleo" on the tierces and tubs containing a compound of cotton-seed oil and the product of beef-fat is an infringement of the Trade-Mark “Cottolene" previously registered for the sale of the same substance and used

in marking tierces and tubs. 3. SAME-SAME-It is no defense to a suit for infringement of the Trade-Mark

“Cottolene" by the use of the word “Cottoleo" that defendant sold under his own name, and made no attempt, other than by use of the word “Cot

toleo,” to sell his goods as if manufactured by plaintiff. * Id. 4. THE WORD “HYGEIA”-AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES DEFINING THE

Right to USE THE SAME TRADE-MARK-ENFORCEABLE-Where parties entered into an agreement with a full understanding of their rights, defining the right of each to use a Trade-Mark, “Hygeia," Held that they and those who hold under them are estopped to deny the right of the other to the use of the Trade-Mark. * Waukesha Hygeia Mineral Springs Com

pany v. Hygcia Sparkling Distilled Water Company, 208. 5. SAME-SUCH AGREEMENT IS NOT A TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 12, TRADE

MARK ACT-Such an agreement is not an attempt to transfer or license the use of a Trade-Mark, or any rights therein, or in any word thereof, but fixes and defines the existing Trade-Mark of each party to the agreement, and is not required to be recorded in the Patent Office under section

12 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1881. * Id. 6. EFFECT OF REGISTRY OF A TRADE-MARK-If the fact of registry confers any

benefits, it is only those which are specially provided in the act of Congress and not covered by the common-law rule. The Trade-Mark, when estab

lished, is valid and entitled to protection, whether registered or not. 7. INFRINGEMENT-THE WORD "HYGEIA”—Where the defendant had the right

to use the words “Waukesha Hygeia Mineral Springs" and the complainant the word “Hygeia" as Trade-Marks, Held that the defendant did not infringe the complainant's Mark by making the word “Hygeia” more conspicuous than the other words. *Waukesha Hygeia Mineral Springs

Company v. Hygeia Sparkling Distilled Water Company, 215. 8. “FIBRE CHAMOIS” – LINING FOR DRESSES_VALID-The combined words

“Fibre Chamois," as applied to a fabric used as an interlining for women's dresses, Held to have a significance as an arbitrary mark and name, whereby the goods made by coinplainant are identified and distinguished in the trade as carried on. * American Fibre Chamois Company v. De Lee & Dernberg, 395.

* Id.

TRADE-MARKS—Continued. 9. “MOMAJA"_VALID—The name "Momaja” is suggestive of a composition of

Mocha, Maracaibo, and Java coffees, but is not sufficiently descriptive to invalidate it as a trade-mark. * American Grocery Company v. Bennett,

Sloan & Co., 406. 10. “MOMAJA"_“MOJAVA"-COLORABLE VARIATION — The word “Mojava"

so nearly resembles “Momaja" as to cause confusion. * Id. 11. “ROSEBUD"—The representation of a rosebud and the word “Rosebud” are

registrable in one application, it appearing that the trade mark is a lawful coinmon-law mark and the prescribed statutory requisites are present.

Ec parte Kinney, 822. 12. GEOGRAPHICAL NAME_"WAVERLEY”-REGISTRABLE—The word “Waver

ley,” while it is used to designate localities, yet it is not “merely a geographical name" in the sense employed by the Supreme Court in Columbia Mill Co.v. Alcorn, (C. D., 1893,672; 65 0. G., 1916;) and may be registered.

Ex parte Indiana Bicycle Company, 66. 13. SAME—“CLOVERDALE”—Not REGISTRABLE—The word “Cloverdale" pri

marily has a geographical meaning and should not be registered. (Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, C. D., 1893, 672; 65 0.G., 1916, followed.) Ex parte

Hendley, 66. 14. SAME—The classes of geographical names which may and may not be reg

istered as trade-marks indicated. Id. 15. “ELECTRIC”—“ELECTRIC LIGHT” — REGISTRABILITY—The differences in

appearance, as written or printed, in sound, and in meaning are sufficient to differentiate the words “Electric Light” from the word “ Electric,” and therefore the prior registration of the latter word does not bar the registration of the former words. Kirby v. McLaughlin & Co. v. John

ston, 73. 16. INTERFERENCE – MOTION TO DISSOLVE-A trade-mark consisting of the

words “ Electric Light” alone and another trade-mark consisting of these words accompanied by the representation of the upper part of an electriclight bulb with zigzag rays emanating from it conflict, the words being the “prominent, essential, and vital feature" of the marks, and a motion

to dissolve the interference denied. Id. 17. “SYRUP OF Figs"_DESCRIPTIVE NAME—The words “Syrup of Figs" or

“Fig Syrup” being descriptive can not be sustained as a valid trade-mark or trade-name as applied to a syrup one of the characteristic ingredients of which is the juice of the fig. *California Fig Syrup Company v. Stearns

et al., 565. 18. SAME-SAME-DECEPTION—The use of the name “Syrup of Figs,” in con

nection with a description of the preparation as a “Fruit Remedy,” “Nature's Pleasant Laxative," applied to a compound whose active ingredient is senna, and containing but a small proportion of fig-juice, which has no considerable laxative properties, is deceptive and deprives one so using it of any claim to equitable relief. (California Fig Syrup Co. v. Improved Fig Syrup Co., C. D., 1892,585; 61 O. G., 155; 51 Fed. Rep., 296; on appeal, C. D., 1893, 416; 64 O. G., 158; 4 C. C. A., 264; 5+ Fed. Rep., 175, distin

guished.) *Id. 19. “GENESEE”—GEOGRAPHICAL NAME—Injunction granted restraining defenil

ants from combining the words “Genesee,” “ Salt," "Co.," and Factory Filled” to resemble plaintiff's combination, but denied as applied to the word “Genesee” alone, which represents the locality of the manufacture, and which the defendants are entitled to use. *Genesee Salt Company v. Burnap ct al., 587.

TRADE-MARKS—Continued. 20. “R. W. ROGERS Co.”—PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION GRANTED—"Although

the use of a personal name as a trade-mark will not be protected against its use in good faith by a defendant who has the same name, the reason of the rule ceases and the rule no longer applies where the defendant, as in the case of a corporation, selects its own name, especially where it appears that such name is selected with intention to mislead.” (Citing Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Rogers & Spurr Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Rep., 495, and distinguishing Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Simpson, 54 Conn., 527; 9 Atl., 395.) *William Rogers Manufacturing Company v. R. W. Rogers Company et

al., 630. 21. INTERFERENCE-"CAPITOL"-"

“CAPITAL"-MOTION TO DISSOLVE—The difference in sound between “Capitol” and “Capital” is too small to be noticed by the ordinary purchaser, though the trade-marks themselves are specifically different, and motion to dissolve the interference is denied.

Lown v. Ohio Coffee and Spice Company, 93. 22. TRADE-NAMES—INFRINGEMENT-SALE OF RIGHTS IN FIRM-NAME-M. A.

Thedford, being engaged with others, under the firm-name of M. A. Thedford & Co., in the manufacture and sale of “Simmons' Liver Medicine," sold to his partners all his rights therein, and bound himself not to engage in manufacturing the said medicine “under any name or style." Afterward he formed a partnership, under the firm-name of M. A. Thedford Medicine Company, which made and sold a compound called "M. A. Thedford's Liver Invigorator," which they placed upon the market in wrappers and packages and with symbols and literature calculated to induce the belief that it was the “Simmons' Liver Medicine." Held that this was a clear infringement upon the rights of his transferees and that it was no defense that the latter had discontinued the use of the word “Simmons” and called their medicine "M. A. Thedford & Co.'s Original and Only Genuine Liver Medicine, or Black Draught.” (58 Fed. Rep., 347, reversed.)

*Chattanooga Medicine Company v. Thedford et al., 806. TRUSTS. See Corporations. UNADJUDICATED PATENTS. See Injunction, 1, 3. USE AND SALE OF PATENTED ARTICLES. See Construction of Specifica

tions and Patents, 10; Damages and Profits, 2, 3. 1. WELCH-WARDROBE-BEDSTEADS-ASSIGNEE FOR SPECIFIED TERRITORY

SALES FOR SALE AND USE INSIDE OF ANOTHER TERRITORY-One who buys patented articles of manufacture from an assignee for a specified territory, holding title under an otherwise unconditional and unrestricted assignment, becomes possessed of an absolute property in such articles, unrestricted in time or place. *Keeler et al. v. Standard Folding Bed

Company, 294. 2. SAME-SAME-SPECIAL CONTRACT TO PROTECT ASSIGNEES—Whether a pat

entee may protect himself and his assignees by special contracts brought home to the purchasers is a qnestion that would arise as a question of contract and not as one under the inherent meaning and effect of the pat

ent laws. *Id. VALIDITY OF PATENTS. See Construction of Claims; Construction of Speci

fications and Patents, 6, 8; Former Decisions, 1; Reissues, 4. VALID PATENTS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 1; Particular

Patents, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 30, 33, 37, 38, 46, 51, 59, 61, 62, 66, 69, 70, 71, 79, 81, 86, 88, 95, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104.

VOID PATENTS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 2, 3, 13; Par-

ticular Patents, 1, 2, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43,
44, 47, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 67, 74, 75, 76, 80, 83, 84, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,

96, 101; Reissues, 1, 2.
WAIVER OF ERROR. See Practice in the Courts, 1.
WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS OF A FORFEITED CASE. See Forfeited

Cases, 4.
WRIT OF ERROR. See Practice in the Courts, 4.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »