HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0909 and id is 1 raw text is: THE LEATHER CLOTH COMPANY (LTD.) V.
an original right to use these words, but who has not done so, would be liable to be
restrained from doing so now.
Now apply this to the case of oils : I find that thirty different persons have been
awarded prize medals in that branch ; and it would be quite idle to talk of the term
Prize Medal Oils, as representing any one person's goods.
In this aspect the case is something like Dent's case, which came before me some
time ago. (Dent v. Turpin, 2 J. & H. 139.) In that case two firms both claimed
through the same person, who was the person to whose manufacture the reputation
attached, and I thought that they were entitled to come here separately to restrain a
third person from usurping the benefit of that reputation. I do not think that there
was any appeal or any further proceedings in that case, which I may therefore assume
to have been rightly decided ; but the principle there involved could not be applied
to the case of thirty persons who had all obtained prize medals for oils.
If it had been shewn that an order for Prize Medal Pickles would in the trade
be answered by supplying the Plaintiff's pickles, there might be some foundation for
the interference of the Court; but this case falls very far short of it, because that
depends upon the presumption that the purchaser [271] does not know the name of
the merchant, and rests entirely on the reputation acquired by the particular goods;
whereas I have here merely the fact that two persons have put the same mark on
their goods, the one rightly, the other falsely.
I can make no order on this motion. Costs to be costs in the cause.
Since this judgment was delivered, and partly in consequence thereof, a special
Act of Parliament (1) has been passed for the prevention of this particular fraud.
[271] THE LEATHER CLOTH COMPANY (LIMITED) v. THE AMERICAN LEATHER
CLOTH COMPANY (LIMITED). July 7, 8, 1863.
[Reversed, 4 De G. J. & S. 137 ; 46 E. R. 868; 11 H. L. C. 523; 11 E. R. 1435 (with
note, to which add Seixo v. Provezende, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 198; Morgan v. M'Adam,
1866, 36 L. J. Ch. 229; Blackwell v. Crabb, 1867,'36 L. J. Ch. 505 ; Marshall v. Ross,
1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 652 ; Cope v. Evans, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 151 ; Cheavin v. Walker,
1876-77, 5 Ch. D. 850; Siegert v. Findlater, 1878, 7 Ch. D. 812 ; Johnston v. Orr-
Ewing, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 229; Somerville v. Schembri, 1887, 12 App. Cas. 456).]
Trade Mark. Assignment. Injunction. False Representation.
Although a trade mark is not property properly so called, yet when a business
is bond fide assigned the exclusive right to use a trade mark which has been
appropriated to that business may be assigned along with it. And this principle
applies even where the right to use the same trade mark (out of England) is retained
by the assignors.
Where a trade mark has once been legitimately acquired, an altered state of circum-
stances rendering the specific assertions appearing on the face of the trade mark no
longer true will not render the use of such mark improper.
Although a statement in his trade mark, which is false ab initio, will in general deprive
the Plaintiff of all right to relief, this principle does not apply to a case where the
falsehood in question was not reasonably calculated to deceive.
The article known as leather cloth is an American invention, originally due to
Caleb Pearson Crockett. Caleb Pearson Crockett and John R. Crockett, for some
(1) The Exhibition Medals Act, 1863, brought into the House of Lords by the
Marquis of Clanricarde 20th July, sent to the Commons 23d July, received the Royal
assent 28th July.
I H. & M . 271.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0909&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)