63 Cal. 445, Eggers v. Hink

Citation:63 Cal. 445
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:J. F. G. EGGERS, APPELLANT, v. P. H. HINK, RESPONDENT
Attorney:John H. Dickinson, for Appellant, William Leviston and T. D. Riordan, for Respondent,
Case Date:May 30, 1883
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 445

63 Cal. 445

J. F. G. EGGERS, APPELLANT,

v.

P. H. HINK, RESPONDENT

Supreme Court of California Department One

May 30, 1883

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

COUNSEL:

John H. Dickinson, for Appellant, cited Shaffer v. Korbell, 9 P. C.L.J. 958; Derringer v. Plate, 29 Cal. 298; Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Lowell Hosiery Mills, 10 The Reporter, 809; Fetridge v. Merchant, Cox's Am. Trade Mark Cases, 194; Burke v. Cassin, 45 Cal. 469; Falkinburg v. Lucy, 35 Cal. 52; § 3199, Pol. Code; Hier v. Abrahams, 82 N.Y. 519; Coddington's Digest of Trade Mark, §§ 985, 261; Coddington's Digest of Trade Marks, § 1018.

William Leviston and T. D. Riordan, for Respondent, cited § 991 of the Civil Code; § 3196 of the Political Code; Browne on Trade Marks, § 143; Amoskeag Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf. 605; Amoskeag Co. v. Trainer, The Reporter, Sept. 22, 1880; Moorman v. Hoge, 2 Sawy. 78; Falkinburg v. Lucy, 35 Cal. 65; Choyinski v. Cohen, 39 Cal. 501; Burke v. Cassin, 45 Cal. 467; Wotherspoon v. Gray, 36 Scot. Jur. 24; Perry v. Truefit, 6 Beav. 72; Kinney v. Birch, Codd's Dig. Tr. M. Cases, 1037; Raggett v. Findlater, Law R. 17 Eq. 29; Stokes v. Langraff, 17 Barb. 608; Corwin v. Daley, 7 Bosw. 222.)

OPINION

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Page 446

PER CURIAM.

The action is to recover damages for a violation of the plaintiff's alleged trade-mark, and to restrain the use of it by the defendant in the future. The sufficiency of the complaint is the question for consideration. According to its averments the plaintiff is engaged in conducting a saloon business in the city and county of San Francisco, particularly for the sale of a certain kind of beer known as Philadelphia Beer; and what he seeks to protect as a trade-mark, and which is used by him as a sign over the doors of his place of business, and as a label for the beer bottled by him, consists of a row of beer barrels so painted upon the sign and printed upon the labels as to show the top-head and outline of each barrel, with the letters " P.B." indicating and standing for Philadelphia Beer, stamped or printed upon the head of each barrel, together with the words " Depot of the Celebrated" over, and the words " Philadelphia Lager Beer" below the row of barrels. The act of the defendant complained of is the erection by him over...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP