66 N.Y. 69, Popham v. Cole

Citation:66 N.Y. 69
Party Name:WILLIAM H. POPHAM, Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. COLE et al., Survivors, etc., Respondents.
Case Date:April 25, 1876
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 69

66 N.Y. 69

WILLIAM H. POPHAM, Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM A. COLE et al., Survivors, etc., Respondents.

New York Court of Appeal

April 25, 1876

Argued Apr. 13, 1876.

Page 70

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 71

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 72

COUNSEL

S. F. Cowdrey for the appellant. Plaintiff had a right of property in the figure of a hog and the words "pig brand" used by him as a trade-mark, and was entitled to be protected in the use of them. (Fettridge v. Wells, 4 Abb., 146; Gillott v. Esterbrook, 48 N.Y. 379; Amosk. Mfg. Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf., 605;

Page 73

Stokes v. Landraff, 17 Barb., 612; Bloss v. Bloomer, 23 Id., 609; Clark v. Clark, 25 Id., 79; Bkly N.W. L. Co. v. Masury, Id., 418; Howard v. Henriques, 3 Sandf., 727; McAndrews v. Bessett, 10 L. T. R., 443; Serxo v. Provezendo, 1 L. R., Ch., 197; Caswell v. Davis, 58 N.Y. 234; Taylor v. Gillies, 59 Id., 334; Popham v. Wilcox, 14 Abb. [N. S.], 206; Wil. Eq., 206; Taylor v. Carpenter, 11 Paige, 292; Burnett v. Phalon, 42 N.Y. 594; Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo., 168; Edelstein v. Edelstein, 1 DeG., J. & S., 185.) If, in the imitation of a trade-mark, there is such a resemblance to the original as is calculated to mislead purchasers, it is a violation of it. (Knott v. Morgan, 2 Keene, 213; McCartney v. Garhart, 45 Mo., 593; Lockwood v. Bostwick, 2 Daly, 521; Williams v. Johnson, 2 Bosw., 1; Partridge v. Menck, 2 Barb. Ch., 101; Swift v. Day, 4 Robt. 611; Matsell v. Flanagan, 2 Abb. [ N. S.], 459; Bininger v. Wattles, 28 How., 206; Upton on Trade-marks, 221.)

Wm. F. Shepard for the respondents. Plaintiff had not an exclusive right to use the symbol of a hog as a trade-mark. (Gillott v. Esterbrook, Cox Am. T. M. Cas., 347; Stokes v. Landgraff, 17 Barb., 608; Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr., 64; Bininger v. Wattles, 28 Id., 206; Corwin v. Daly, 7 Bosw., 222; Caswell v. Davis, 58 N.Y. 223.) There was no such similarity between the two brands or labels as to entitle plaintiff to the relief demanded. (Amosk. Mfg. Co. v. Spear, 2 Duer, 607; Swift v. Day, 4 Robt., 611; Snowden v. Noah, Hop. Ch., 347; Partridge v. Menck, 2 Sandf. Ch., 101; 2 Barb. Ch., 101; Colloday v. Baird, 4 Phil., 139; Stephens v. De Gonto, 7 Rob., 343; Rowley v. Houghton, 2 Brews. [ Penn.], 303; Mer. Mfg. Co. v. Am. L. C. Co., Cox Am. T. M. Cas., 707; Brown on T. M., § 333.)

ALLEN, J.

The evidence is that the imprint or picture of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP