A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. v. Aldridge, 312.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 312. |
| Citation | 292 F. 1013 |
| Parties | A. BOURJOIS & CO., Inc. v. George M. ALDRIDGE, Collector of the Port of New York, and Le Benart Import Co., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
This cause came here by appeal from an order denying injunction entered in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. In and before 1906 the firm of Wertheimer & Cie of France, sold in the United States a face or toilet powder under the name "Manon Lescaut." That firm was and is successor to another French copartnership known as A Bourjois & Cie, which had originated the powder. In 1908 Wertheimer & Cie. registered trade-marks in the United States covering the names "Poudre Manon Lescaut," and "Bouquet Manon Lescaut" for toilet powders and face tints. By 1913 this business in Manon Lescaut powder in the United States was still small, not exceeding 1,200 boxes annually. In that year the plaintiff A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. was incorporated in New York for the purpose, inter alia, of taking over this business, and thereupon Wertheimer & Cie sold, conveyed, and transferred to plaintiff, its successors and assigns, "the entire business heretofore and now carried on [by said copartnership] in the United States, *** and the sole and exclusive right to manufacture and sell in the United States any and all toilet preparations now made by [Wertheimer & Cie.] or which may hereafter be made by [that firm] in France," the assignment covered the going American business of Wertheimer, including chattels, goods, accounts, and contracts in the most ample manner; but grantors did not in any way, so far as shown in evidence, covenant or agree to abstain from future sales of their products in the United States. Thereupon plaintiff strove to extend the business thus acquired in Manon Lescaut powder, with such success that when bill filed (December, 1921) it had reached nearly 200,000 boxes annually.
In September, 1915, plaintiff registered two trade-mark applications (subsequently granted as 111,176 and 111,994) one for the words "Poudre Manon Lescaut" for "toilet powder, sachet powder, violet water, brilliantine and perfume, rouge and face-cream," "no claim being made for the word 'Poudre' apart from the mark shown," and the other for a scheme of package...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weil Ceramics and Glass, Inc. v. Dash
... ... Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U.S. 689, 43 S.Ct. 244, 67 L.Ed. 464 (1923). The ... Bourjois & Co. v. Aldridge, 263 U.S. 675, 44 S.Ct. 4, 66 L.Ed. 501 (1923) for the proposition that ... ...
-
Olympus Corp. v. U.S.
... ... 47th Street Photo, Inc., Intervenor-Appellee ... No. 733, Docket 85-6282 ... Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 275 F. 539 (2d Cir.1921), a decision that ... Bourjois & Co. v. Aldridge, 263 U.S. 675, 44 S.Ct. 4, 68 L.Ed. 501 (1923) (per ... ...
-
Vivitar Corp. v. United States
... ... 47th Street Photo, Inc., Defendant-Intervenor ... Court No. 84-1-00067 ... , New York City, for amicus curiae Progress Trading Co., Inc ... Kelly, Lucas & Mohen, Richard ... Co. v. Schoening, 238 F. 780 (2d Cir.1916); A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. v. Katzel, 275 F. 539 (2d Cir.1921), rev'd, ... A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. v. Aldridge, 263 U.S. 675, 44 S.Ct. 4, 68 L.Ed. 501 (1923) answering ... ...
-
United States v. Guerlain, Inc.
...after a considerable delay of decision, reversed the Court of Appeals, 260 U.S. 689, 43 S.Ct. 244, 67 L.Ed. 464. In A. Bourjois & Co. v. Aldridge, 2 Cir., 292 F. 1013; 263 U.S. 675, 44 S.Ct. 4, 68 L.Ed. 501, the Court adhered to Katzel and held that where an American trade-mark was so infri......