Cases United States v. Steffens United States v. Wittemann United States v. Johnson
Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
Docket Number | TRADE-MARK |
Citation | 25 L.Ed. 550,100 U.S. 82 |
Parties | CASES. UNITED STATES v. STEFFENS; UNITED STATES v. WITTEMANN; UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THE first two cases were brought here on certificates of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The last was brought here on a certificate of division on opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
Steffens was indicted under the fourth and fifth sections of an act of Congress entitled 'An Act to punish the counterfeiting of trade-marks and the sale or dealing in of counterfeit trade-mark goods,' approved Aug. 14, 1876, 19 Stat. 141.
The first count in the indictment charges him with knowingly and wilfully having in his possession counterfeits and colorable imitations of the trade-marks of G. H. Mumm & Co., of Rheims, France, manufacturers and sellers of champagne wine.
The second count charges him with knowingly and wilfully selling counterfeited representations and colorable imitations of the trade-mark of said G. H. Mumm & Co. Wittemann was indicted under the fifth section of that act. The indictment consists of six counts, and they charge: 1st, The counterfeiting and forging; 2d, the having in possession colorable imitations of; 3d, the buying; 4th, the selling; 5th, the offering for sale; and, 6th, the dealing in colorable imitations of the private trade-mark belonging to and used by the firm of Kunkleman & Co., of Rheims, France, manufacturers and dealers in wine known as the 'Piper Heidsick' brand of champagne wine.
Johnson, McNamara, and Reeder were prosecuted under that act by a criminal information containing seven counts, of which the first, fourth, and sixth are founded upon a trade-mark consisting of the letters 'O K,' registered in the United States Patent Office by Charles F. O'Donnell, April 2, 1878, for use upon packages of whiskey, and respectively charge the defendants with counterfeiting, affixing a colorable imitation, and dealing in and selling packages of whiskey to which was attached a colorable imitation of said trade-mark; and the second, third, fifth, and seventh counts are founded upon another trade-mark, consisting of a seal and ribbon, the latter secured by the seal of a package containing whiskey, registered by Charles F. O'Donnell, May 21, 1878, and respectively charge the defendants with counterfeiting, making a colorable imitation, affixing a colorable imitation, and dealing in packages of whiskey to which was attached a colorable imitation of said trade-mark.
Sects. 4 and 5 of the act of 1876 are as follows:——
' .
' .
Sect. 4937, Rev. Stat., is as follows:——
'Any person or firm domiciled in the United States, and any corporation created by the authority of the United States, or of any State or Territory thereof, and any person, firm, or corporation resident of or located in any foreign country which by treaty or convention affords similar privileges to citizens of the United States, and who are entitled to the exclusive use of any lawful trade-mark, or who intend to adopt and use any trade-mark for exclusive use within the United States, may obtain protection for such lawful trade-mark, by complying with the following requirements:——
'First, By causing to be recorded in the Patent Office a statement specifying the names of the parties, and their residences and places of business, who desire the protection of the trade-mark; the class of merchandise, and the particular description of goods comprised in such class, by which the trade-mark has been or is intended to be appropriated; a description of the trade-mark itself, with fac-similes thereof, showing the mode in which it has been or is intended to be applied and used; and the length of time, if any, during which the trade-mark has been in use.
'Second, By making payment of a fee of twenty-five dollars in the same manner and for the same purpose as the fee required for patents.
'Third, By complying with such regulations as may be pre scribed by the Commissioner of Patents.'
To each indictment there was a general demurrer. The judges of the Circuit Court were opposed in opinion upon the following question: 'Can the act of Congress, approved Aug. 14, 1876, entitled 'An Act to punish the counterfeiting of trade-mark goods and the sale or dealing in of counterfeit trade-mark goods,' under which this indictment is found, be upheld, wholly or in part, as a law necessary and proper for carrying into execution any of the powers vested in the Congress by the Constitution of the United States?'- To the information against Johnson, McNamara, and Reeder there was a general demurrer, and thereupon a question arose for decision whether the said act of Congress 'is within the constitutional power of Congress, or whether the same is unconstitutional, null, and void;' and the opinions of the judges of the Circuit Court were opposed.
The Attorney-General for the United States.
The validity of the act of July 8, 1870, which provides for the registration of trade-marks, and gives remedies by civil actions for infringing them, was recognized by Mr. Justice Clifford, who delivered the opinion of the court in McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245. The first sentence of the opinion is as follows:——
Here it is clearly intimated that protection for trade-marks is rightfully provided by that act. If it is invalid, no such protection could be in that mode obtained; but if protection to trade-marks by civil remedies is within the power of Congress, so also are the statutes punishing as a crime the pirating upon property in them. But in that case, and in several others which are cited on the margin of page 955 of the Revised Statutes, the constitutionality of the act was not discussed. In them and others it was assumed rather than directly affirmed.
In the sixth circuit Judge Swing pronounced the law to be constitutional. In the seventh circuit a contrary decision was made. In each case the question was argued and decided upon clause 8 of section 8, article 1, of the Constitution, and the opinion was advanced that it is the only provision by which the authority of Congress on the subject of trade-marks is conferred.
The argument drawn from the likeness which property in the use of trade-marks bears to that in partents and copyrights, and from the fact that Congress, in legislating upon these three matters, has, both in the original act and in the Revised Statutes, classed them together, demands careful consideration. Undoubtedly, in the legislative mind they were kindred subjects, and it was thought that the power of Congress over them might be derived from the same source.
I shall, however, not dwell upon this view of the question.
1. I maintain the constitutionality of the statute upon which the indictments and the information are found, upon the ground that it regulates commerce within the power given to Congress by clause 3 of section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution, which provides that the Congress shall have power 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.'
Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U. S. 275. This is a full and clear statement of what is meant by 'commerce,' and of the extent of the power of Congress over it.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California
...6 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 703, 707; In re Sawyer Electrical Mfg. Co., Cust. & Pat.App.1944, 144 F.2d 893. 12 In re Trade-Mark Cases, 1879, 100 U.S. 82, 25 L.Ed. 550; Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 1915, 240 U.S. 403, 36 S.Ct. 357, 60 L.Ed. 713; United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 1......
-
Chassanoil v. City of Greenwood
... ... by the Supreme Court of the United ... States. Appellants' business is nothing more ... 481 ... In the ... cases at bar we are only asking the court to hold ... ...
-
State v. Coffin
... ... Bagley, Attorney General, and Henry Z. Johnson, for the ... This is ... a hearing on ... of the constitution. The Nebraska cases cited to sustain this ... point have, however, ... moneys at the end of his term," and cites United ... States v. Prescott, 3 How. 578, 11 L.Ed ... ...
-
Aktieselskabet Af 21. Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans
...on the principal register based on "use[] in commerce" or "a bona fide intention ... to use in commerce"); Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94, 25 L.Ed. 550 (1879) ("At common law, the exclusive right to [a trademark] grows out of its use, and not its mere adoption."); In re Application of Go......
-
Human Creativity v. Machine Autonomy In Identifying Copyright Authors Of Generative NFTs
...copyright law only protects "the fruits of intellectual labor" that "are founded in the creative powers of the mind." Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because copyright law is limited to "original intellectual conceptions of the author," the Office will refuse to register a claim i......
-
Human Creativity v. Machine Autonomy In Identifying Copyright Authors Of Generative NFTs
...copyright law only protects "the fruits of intellectual labor" that "are founded in the creative powers of the mind." Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because copyright law is limited to "original intellectual conceptions of the author," the Office will refuse to register a claim i......
-
Copyright Office Review Board Reaffirms That Human Authorship Is A Prerequisite For Copyright Protection
...the production of his own genius or intellect." Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 56 (1884). See also Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S 82, 94 (1879) (explaining that copyright law only protects "the fruits of intellectual labor" that are "founded in the creative powers of the I......
-
A.I. Artwork Not Copyrightable
...of intellectual labor’ that ‘are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind.’ COMPENDIUM (THIRD) § 306 (quoting Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879)); see also COMPENDIUM (THIRD) § 313.2 (the Office will not register works ‘produced by a machine or mere mechanical process’ that ......
-
§ 4.02 History of the Trademark Counterfeiting Act Section 2320
...the patent and copyright clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 8, does not apply to trademarks. See Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, ___ S. Ct. ___, 25 L. Ed. 550 (1879). The Supreme Court found "insurmountable" difficulties in attempting to classify "essential characteristi......
-
Retaining the Hope That Rejection Promises: Why Sunbeam Is a Light That Should Not Be Followed
...this Comment, it is unnecessary to explore the foundations of trade secrets or their treatment in bankruptcy. 19. In re Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 95 (1879).20. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.21. Roger E. Meiners & Robert J. Staaf, Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks: Property or Monopo......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...v. Lyon, No. 87-CV-7199, 1995 WL 217508, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 396. 17 U.S.C. §§ 506, 509; 18 U.S.C. § 2319. 397. See Trade-Mark Cases , 100 U.S. 82 (1879); U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. 78 Antitrust Counterattack in Intellectual Property Litigation Handbook The Lanham Act defines a “tra......
-
The Colorblind Patent System and Black Inventors
...Cent. L.J. 163 (1878). 9. Leidersdorf v. Flint, 15 F. Cas. 260 (C.C.E.D. Wis. 1878). 10. Argument for Defendants at 12, Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879). 11. Trade-Mark Cases , 100 U.S. 82. 12. Tinkering the Constitution , Hartford Courant, Dec. 11, 1879, at 2. 13. Tending Towards Debat......