In the Chatterbox cases, 1884-1887, previously re- The “Chatferred to, the final decision of Judge Shipman empha- terbox" sized the view that the use of the title "Chatterbox" cases on a similar publication was misleading to the public, thus bringing both trade-mark law and common law protection to the rescue against unfair competition. nica cases In the series of Encyclopædia Britannica cases, Encyclopæ1890-1904, the English publishers Black or their dia BritanAmerican representatives Scribner sought to protect in this country the English edition, or an American authorized edition, under the copyright law previous to 1891, copyrighted articles by Americans being included, and under common law because of the alleged fraudulent misuse of the name to mislead the public. In 1893, in Black v. Allen, Judge Townsend held that the use of copyrighted material in a non-copyright work did not vitiate the copyright, that the American author was entitled to secure and protect copyright even though the right to use was assigned to an English house which could not directly secure copyright, and that the fact of discrepancy in the title of the copyrighted articles as registered for copyright on separate publication and deposit and in the cyclopædia, did not endanger the copyright. In 1904, in Encyclopædia Britannica Co. v. Tribune Association, Judge Lacombe in the U. S. Circuit Court enjoined condensations of the copyrighted American articles. But in Black v. Ehrich and other cases, the complainants were not successful in obtaining an injunction against the use of the title Encyclopædia Britannica on reprints of non-copyright material which did not mislead the public. In the Webster Dictionary cases in 1890-1909, a Webster long litigation between the Merriams, as authorized Dictionary publishers of Webster, and Ogilvie and other defendants, the courts held that the use of the name Webster cases "Old sleuth" cases Other title decisions or the title Webster's Dictionary could not be restrained when used in connection with a reprint of the original Webster Dictionary, then out of copyright, or otherwise in a manner not likely to mislead the public; but injunctions were granted and sustained against the use of these names on dictionaries issued in form so like the Merriam editions as to deceive the public, or in connection with misleading advertisements or circulars. In 1888-1890 George Munro, publisher of the "Old sleuth" detective series, sought in actions against several defendants to protect the use of the name "Sleuth" and was upheld in the N. Y. Supreme Court in separate decisions by Judges Andrews, O'Brien, and Patterson, while in one of the cases Judge Ingraham held that "sleuth" was a dictionary word and could not be protected; in 1889 the N. Y. Court of Appeals through Chief Judge Parker decided that the name "Sleuth" was protectable, and in 1890 Judge Macomber of the N. Y. Supreme Court held that "Sleuth" was properly a subject of trade-mark. But in 1890 also, Judge Shipman in the U. S. District Court dismissed the complaint in another Munro case, as to an illustration picturing "Old Sleuth," on the ground that though of the same subject it was not of the same character. These cases illustrate the difficulty of decisions in this borderland of equity. In 1894 Judge Green, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New Jersey, in Social Register Association v. Howard, protected on grounds of equity the title "Social register" as descriptive of a social directory covering Orange, N. J., and enjoined the use of "Howard's Social register" as unfair competition. In 1887 the Harper house, as publishers of the Franklin Square Library, obtained from the U. S. Circuit Court, through Judge Waite, an injunction against the Franklin Square Library Company for violation of their trade-mark rights in the name. Where the American Book Co. brought suit Rebound against Doan & Hanson, who had restored and re- copies bound used copies of schoolbooks, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1901 that there was no violation of law, but required notice that the books were second-hand copies by conspicuous stamp on the cover. In 1891 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Dodd v. Smith, declined to grant Dodd, Mead & Co. an injunction against re-binders who had purchased from them sheets of a fifty-cent paper-covered edition of a novel by E. P. Roe and bound these in cloth to sell at sixty cents in competition with the plaintiff's $1.50 cloth edition. In 1899 G. P. Putnam's Sons purchased from Kip- The Kipling ling's authorized publishers sheets of twelve volumes, case added three volumes of non-copyright or otherwise authorized material and published the fifteen volumes, "Brushwood edition," of Kipling's works, with the design of an elephant's head on the binding. Kipling sought an injunction for infringement of copyright, use of trade-mark and unfair competition with the "Outward bound edition" of his works, which also bore an elephant's head. In 1903 the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Coxe, affirmed a decision holding as "a well-recognized principle of law" that "the defendants, having purchased unbound copyrighted volumes, were at liberty, so far as the copyright statute is concerned, to bind and resell them"; that the elephant's head, not being a registered trade-mark, could not be protected as a trademark; and that there was no similarity of editions constituting unfair competition. But in 1907, in Dutton v. Cupples & Leon, the plaintiffs obtained damages for a series of books closely imitating the Burlesqued title The Drummond case The new get-up of their "Gem" or "Dainty" series. Passing off, however, cannot be made ground of action when material protectable by copyright has not been copyrighted, as was held in 1908, in Bamforth v. Douglas Post Card Co., by Judge McPherson in the U. S. Circuit Court. The suit to enjoin the use of a reversed or burlesque title, when the Boston Herald printed, under the title of "Letters of a son to his self-made father," a skit on Lorimer's "Letters of a self-made merchant to his son," was denied by Judge Morton in the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1903 as involving no deception. In 1894 Henry Drummond, a British subject, obtained from Judge Dallas, in the U. S. Circuit Court, an injunction restraining Henry Altemus from publishing what purported to be exact reports of twelve lectures, of which eight only had been imperfectly reported in the British Weekly, on the ground that the author had a common law right to restrain the publication" of any literary matter as the plaintiff's, which was not actually his creation, and to prevent fraud." The new British measure comprehensively defines British code infringement as the doing without consent of the owner of the copyright of "anything the sole right to do which is by this act conferred on the owner of the copyright," but specifically excepts (1) fair dealing for private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary; (2) use by an artist of sketches, etc., made for a work of which he has sold the copyright, provided he does not repeat or imitate that work; (3) graphic reproduction of objects, or photographing of paintings, etc., in a public place; (4) limited extracts for use in schoolbooks; (5) report of lectures unless prohibited by placard; (6) reading or recitation of reasonable extracts. XV REMEDIES AND PROCEDURE dure It was for the protection of copyrights that the stat- Protection ute of Anne was passed and that statutory law thus and procebegan to replace English common law - a gain to authors sadly offset by its losses. But it was undoubtedly true that without statutory provision the proprietor of literary and similar property could not obtain the protection necessary for the enforcement of his rights. The new American code is comprehensive, detailed and specific in its legal provisions for protection and procedure, and in respect to punishment far beyond any copyright legislation on the statute books of any other nation. The first protection given by the statute is the in- Injunction junction usual in equity proceedings, following the precedent of early legislation. Under previous American law, damages were Damages levied primarily on infringing copies found in possession of the infringer or his agents, with the unfortunate result that when an infringer was successful in selling his edition, few, if any, copies were found on which to levy damages. The new code thoroughly corrects this defect by providing for specified damages on infringing copies "made or sold by or found in the possession of the infringer or his agents or employees." The plaintiff is entitled to damages and all profits and is required only to prove sales, while the defendant is required to prove the elements of cost. The damages-assessed as such and not as penalties so as to free copyright litigation from the restrictions of penal proceedings are stated as one |