REFERENCE TABLE OF SUCH CASES DECIDED IN U. S. SUPREME COURT, OCTOBER TERM, 1901, AND REPORTED HEREIN, 250-251 365 366-367 367-369 173 369-3721 Carter v. McClaughry 236 46 237 64 44 238 239 66 174 372-375 240 66 THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States AT OCTOBER TERM, 1901. [1]*HOLZAPFEL'S COMPOSITIONS COM-| missed a bill to restrain the use of an al PANY (Limited), Petitioner, v. RAHTJEN'S AMERICAN COMPOSITION (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 1-13.) Trademarks use of word "patent"-right to use name after patent expires. 1. No right to a trademark which includes the word "patent" and which describes the article as "patented" can arise when there is and has been no patent; nor is the claim a valid one for the other words used, where it is based upon their use in connection with that 2. The right to use the word "patent" as part of the name of an article for which a patent has been obtained ceases on the expiration of the patent. word. 3. The name "Rahtjen's Composition" for paint first prepared by Rahtjen, and which was for years covered by a patent, becomes common property after the expiration of the patent, where that name has always been given to the article and is the only name by which it is possible to describe it. [No. 54.] leged trademark. Reversed. See same case below, 41 C. C. A. 329, 101 Fed. 257. Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham: The respondent, a New York corporation, commenced this suit in equity in the circuit court for the southern district of *New York, [2] against the petitioner, which is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain and having a place of business in the city of New York, to restrain it from the use of the trademark which the respondent averred it had acquired in the name "Rahtjen's Composition," and to obtain an accounting of the profits and income which the petitioner had unlawfully derived from the use of such trademark, and which it had by reason thereof diverted from the respondent. Issue was taken on the various allegations in the bill, and upon the trial the circuit court dismissed the same (97 Fed. 949), but upon appeal to the circuit court of appeals the decree of the circuit court was reversed and the case remanded to that court, with instructions to enter a decree enjoining the petitioner from selling or offering to sell Rahtjen's Composition under that name, Argued April 25, 26, 1901. Decided Octo- and from using the name upon its packages ber 21, 1901. 0 NOTE. On the effect of deception in a trademark to defeat right of action for its infringement-see notes to Raymond v. Royal Baking Powder Co. 29 C. C. A. 250, and Joseph v. Macowsky (Cal.) 19 L. R. A. 53. As to trademarks: right to; what may be; 183 U. S. U. S., Book 46. | or in its advertisements. 41 C. C. A. 329, 101 Fed. 257. Judge Wallace dissented from the judg ment and opinion of the circuit court of appeals, holding that the case was properly decided in the court below, and that the decree ought to be affirmed. transfer of; use of; infringement-see notes to Dr. S. A. Richmond Nervine Co. v. Richmond, 40 L. ed. U. S. 155: Coats v. Merrick Thread Co. 37 L. ed. U. S. 847; and Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co. 34 L. ed. U. S. 997. 49 |