Bourjois Co v. Katzel
| Decision Date | 29 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 190,190 |
| Parties | A. BOURJOIS & CO., Inc., v. KATZEL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Hans v. Briesen, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. John B. Doyle, of New York City, for respondent.
This is a bill to restrain the infringement of the trade-marks 'Java' and 'Bourjois' registered in the Patent Office of the United States. A preliminary injunction was granted by the District Court (274 Fed. 856), but the order was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, one Judge dissenting (275 Fed. 539). A writ of certiorari was granted by this court. 257 U. S. 630, 42 Sup. Ct. 92, 66 L. Ed. 406. In 1913 A. Bourjois & Cie., E. Wertheimer & Cie. Successeurs, doing business in France and also in the United States, sold to the plaintiff for a large sum their business in the United States, with their good will and their trade-marks registered in the Patent Office. The latter related particularly to face powder, and included the above words. The plaintiff since its purchase has registered them again and goes on with the business that it bought, using substantially the same form of box and label as its predecessors and importing its face powder from France. It uses care in selecting colors suitable for the American market, in packing and in keeping up the standard, and has spent much money in advertising, etc., so that the business has grown very great and the labels have come to be understood by the public here as meaning goods coming from the plaintiff. The boxes have upon their backs:
The defendant, finding that the rate of exchange enabled her to do so at a profit, bought a large quantity of the same powder in France and is selling it here in the French boxes which closely resemble those used by the plaintiff except that they have not the last quoted statement on the backs, and that the label reads 'Poudre de riz de Java' whereas the plaintiff has found it advisable to strike out the suggestion of rice powder and has 'Poudre Java' instead. There is no question that the defendant infringes the plaintiff's rights unless the fact that her boxes and powder are the genuine product of the French concern gives her a right to sell them in the present form.
We are of opinion that the plaintiff's rights are infringed. After the sale the French manufacturers could not have come to the United States and have used their old marks in competition with the plaintiff. That plainly follows from the statute authorizing assignments. Act of February 20, 1905, c. 592, § 10, 33 Stat. 727 (Comp. St. § 9495). If for the purpose of evading the effect of the transfer it had arranged with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California
...L.Ed. 713; United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 1918, 248 U.S. 90, 39 S.Ct. 48, 63 L. Ed. 141; Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 1923, 260 U.S. 689, 43 S.Ct. 244, 67 L.Ed. 464, 26 A.L.R. 567; Prestonettes, Inc., v. Coty, 1924, 264 U.S. 359, 44 S.Ct. 350, 68 L.Ed. 731; Imperial Cotto Sales Co. ......
-
El Greco Leather Products Co. v. Shoe World, Inc.
...that plaintiff sponsors such shoes, stands behind them and stakes its reputation on their character. A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U.S. 689, 692, 43 S.Ct. 244, 245, 67 L.Ed. 464 (1923). See also, e.g., Roger & Gallet v. Janmarie, Inc., 245 F.2d 505, 510-11 (C.C.P.A.1957); E. Leitz, Inc. ......
-
Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corporation, 3009.
...in the United States. Ownership of goods does not carry the right to sell them with a specific mark. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U. S. 689, 43 S. Ct. 244, 67 L. Ed. 464, 26 A. L. R. 567. The Tariff Commission has very ably and succinctly described the conditions confronting the complainan......
-
Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co. v. Las Palmas Food Company
...great value but that easily is destroyed, and therefore should be protected with corresponding care." Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 1923, 260 U.S. 689, 692, 43 S.Ct. 244, 245, 67 L.Ed. 464. Section 14400 of the Business and Professions Code of California provides with respect to ownership of a ......
-
Sharing the burden of proof in parallel importation cases: a proposal for a synthesis of United States and European Union trademark law.
...281 (discussing purpose of Tariff Act to protect good will of investor); A Bourjois & Co v. Katzel, 275 F. 539 (2d Cir. 1921), rev'd, 260 U.S. 689 (1923) (failing to enjoin importation of a foreign mark holder after it sold rights to United States (42.) See generally Kmart, 486 U.S. 281......
-
Mark My Words, This Is a Heavy Weight to Carry: the Eleventh Circuit Court Sets the Standard Weight Given to a Presumption of Validity of a Registered Mark
...Evidence § 301.02(3)(b) (Mark S. Brodin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d ed. 1997).157. Id. at § 301.02(2).158. A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. v. Katzel., 260 U.S. 689, 692 (1923).159. 3 McCarthy § 17:8.160. 1 McCarthy § 2:2.161. Id. 162. Id. at § 2:25 n.2.163. Id. at n.5.164. Id. at § 2:4.165. Id.166. Id.......
-
Encumbered Industrial Property Rights
...33 Stat. 730, 33 USC§1051 et seq.2FredGretsch Mfg. Co. v. Schoening, 238 F. 780 (CA2-1916).3275 F. 539 (CA2-1921).4Bourjois v. Katzel, 260 US 689 (1923).SUnited States v. Guerlain Inc., 155 F.Supp. 77 (SDNY 1957),114 USPQ 223.6United States v. Parfums Corday, 155 F.Supp. 77 (SDNY1957), 114 ......