Atlantic Milling Co. v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 06 May 1884
• Citation: 20 F. 217
• Parties: ATLANTIC MILLING CO. v. ROBINSON and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

20 F. 217

ATLANTIC MILLING CO. v. ROBINSON and others.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

May 6, 1884

Briesen & Steele, for complainant. A. v. Briesen, of counsel.

L. H Arnold, Jr., for defendant Robinson.

Geo. H Forster, for defendant Rowland.

WALLACE J.

The proofs show that in 1861 the firm of Alexander H. Smith &amp Co., then the proprietor of the Atlantic mills, at St. Louis Missouri, adopted the word 'Champion,' and employed it to distinguish a particular quality of flour made and sold by them. From that time until the present it has been used as a trade-mark either by that firm or the several firms and corporations that became the proprietors of the property and business of the Atlantic mills. The flour to which it was applied was particularly adapted for the southern export trade, and became generally known and recognized as the production of the Atlantic mills by the word which was thus used to designate it.

The complainant has not made proof of any formal transfer by Alexander H. Smith & Co. to any of the succeeding proprietors of the Atlantic mills of the right to use the trade-mark; and if complainant has acquired that right it is because it passed upon the purchase of the mill property and business as an accessory thereof to each purchaser who became the proprietor of the premises, including the complainant, without any agreement respecting the trade-mark.

The right to the exclusive use of a word or symbol as a trade-mark is inseparable from the right to make and sell the commodity which it has been appropriated to designate as the production or article of the proprietor. It may be abandoned if the business of the proprietor is abandoned. It may become identified with the place or establishment where the article is manufactured or sold, to which it has been applied, so as to designate and characterize the article as the production of that place or establishment rather than of the proprietor. A trade-mark of this description is of no value to the original proprietor because he could not use it without deception, and therefore would not be protected in its exclusive enjoyment. Such a trade-mark would seem to be an incident to the business of the place or establishment to which it owes its origin, and without which it can have no independent existence. It should be deemed to pass with a transfer of the business because such an implication is consistent with the character of the...