81 Cal. 252, 12064, Sperry & Co. v. Percival Milling Co.

Docket Nº:12064
Citation:81 Cal. 252, 22 P. 651
Opinion Judge:McFARLAND, Judge
Party Name:SPERRY AND COMPANY, Appellant, v. PERCIVAL MILLING COMPANY, Respondent
Attorney:Newlands, Allen & Herrin, for Appellant. William B. Haskell, and T. J. Geary, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: McFarland, J. Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Case Date:November 22, 1889
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 252

81 Cal. 252

22 P. 651

SPERRY AND COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

PERCIVAL MILLING COMPANY, Respondent

No. 12064

Supreme Court of California

November 22, 1889

Page 253

Department Two

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.

COUNSEL:

Newlands, Allen & Herrin, for Appellant.

A device, emblem, stamp, imprint, label, or wrapper is protected by law as a trade-mark. (Pol. Code, secs. 3196, 3199; Burke v. Cassin , 45 Cal. 477; 13 Am. Rep. 204; Hier v. Abrahams , 82 N.Y. 519; 37 Am. Rep. 589.) The circumstances show a fraudulent design to imitate plaintiff's trade-mark sufficiently to deceive customers, and that will sustain an injunction, though there are points of difference. (Avery v. Merkle , 81 Ky. 102; Burke v. Cassin , 45 Cal. 478; 13 Am. Rep. 204; Sebastian on Trade-marks, 71, 72, 74, 78; Brown on Trade-marks, sec. 33; Blackwell v. Crabb, 36 L. J. 504; Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack , 12 F. 708; Liggett v. Hynes , 20 F. 885; Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Davis , 26 F. 293; Filley v. Fassett , 44 Mo. 128; 100 Am. Dec. 275; Swift v. Day, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 611; Lockwood v. Bostwick, 2 Daly, 52; Taylor v. Taylor, 23 Eng. L. & Eq. 281; Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Spear, 2 Sand. 599; Walton v. Crowley, 3 Blatchf. 446; Edelstein v. Vick, 11 Hare, 78; 13 Eng. L. & Eq. 51; McLean v. Fleming , 96 U.S. 245-258; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. Co ., 32 F. 94; Sawyer v. Horn , 1 F. 24; Sawyer v. Kellogg , 7 F. 720; Actien-Gesellschaft v. Somborn, 14 Blatchf. 380; Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach , 32 F. 205; Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Beach , 35 F. 248; Parlett v. Guggenheimer , 67 Md. 542; Morgan v. Troxell , 89 N.Y. 292.)

William B. Haskell, and T. J. Geary, for Respondent.

" Germea" is a name indicating, not the origin, but the qualities and ingredients of the preparation, and cannot be adopted as a trade-mark. (Civ. Code, sec. 991; Amoskeag Co. v. Spear, Cox's Trade-mark Cases, 87; Choynski v. Cohen , 39 Cal. 501, 2 Am. Rep. 476; Burke v. Cassin , 45 Cal. 467; 13 Am. Rep. 204; Falkenburg v. Lucy , 35 Cal. 52; 95 Am. Dec. 76; Gilman v. Hunnewell , 122 Mass. 139; Gillott v. Esterbrook, Cox's Trade-mark Cases, 340; Popham v. Cole , 66 N.Y. 69; 23 Am. Rep. 22; Hier v. Abrahams , 82 N.Y. 519; 37 Am. Rep. 589; 6 Wait's Actions and Defenses, 24, 27; Upton's Law of Trade-marks, 99; Newman v. Alvord , 51 N.Y. 189; 10 Am. Rep. 588; Thompson v. Winchester, Cox's Trade-mark Cases, 10.) There can be no trade-mark in the form of the package, and the form of a vendable commodity cannot be a trade-mark. (Gillott v. Esterbrook, Brown on Trade-marks, sec. 89 b; Moorman v. Hoge, 2 Saw. 78.) There can be no trade-mark in a label; and no manufacturer can have an exclusive right to use a particular colored paper for his package. (Faber v. Faber, Cox's Trade-mark Cases, 401; Brown on Trade-marks, 83, 112, 133, 270, 272; Payson Indelible Ink Case, Brown on Trade-marks, secs. 271, 272.) Pictures alone cannot be the subject of trade-mark. (Eggers v. Hink , 63 Cal. 445; 49 Am. Rep. 96.) Nor anything indicating merely degrees of quality. (Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Sherrell , 93 N.Y. 331; 45 Am. Rep. 229; Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. Troxell , 89 N.Y. 292; Candee v. Deere , 54 Ill. 439; 5 Am. Rep. 125.)

JUDGES: McFarland, J. Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

OPINION

McFARLAND, Judge

Page 254

Plaintiff and defendant are both corporations; and the action is to enjoin defendant from counterfeiting, etc., certain trade-marks, labels, etc., of plaintiff, and for damages. The court found certain facts upon which it rendered judgment for defendant; and plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.

The main contention of appellant is, that the conclusions of law reached by the court below were erroneous, and that, upon the findings of fact, the judgment should have been for plaintiff.

From March, 1883, to the commencement of this action, February 4, 1886, plaintiff and its...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP