City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow
| Decision Date | 02 July 1895 |
| Parties | CITY OF CARLSBAD et al. v. KUTNOW et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Charles G. Coe, for plaintiffs.
Antonio Knauth, for defendants.
The Carlsbad springs appear to be owned by, and wholly within the contro of, the city of Carlsbad, in Bohemia; and the waters of them, for many years, to have been evaporated into salts of highly medicinal qualities in crystals and powder, well know for their curative properties, everywhere, as 'Carlsbad Sprudel Salz.' This bill is brought to restrain the defendants, who are dealers in drugs and medicines in New York from further using the words, 'I proved Effervescent Carlsbad Powder,' in selling other salts of similar appearance and properties, and for an account of profits from such use. As these are natural waters, unlike any others, and from which salts different from any others are produced, all genuine Carlsbad salts must necessarily emanate from them; and the plaintiffs, as proprietors of the springs and their products, must have the exclusive right to prepare and sell these waters and products as genuinely coming from these springs. The defendants do not deny the use of these words in selling similar salts, but claim the right to so use them because registry of these words, with other symbols relating to the Carlsbad springs as a trade-mark, was granted to them by the high court of justice of England, chancery division, against opposition by the plaintiffs, in 1893; because, as they allege, the plaintiffs sell artificial salts by the name of 'Carlsbad Salts;' and because their use of these words is not likely to mislead purchasers as to the original of their salts.
The decision in favor of granting the application for registry of the trade-mark could have no effect beyond the grant of that privilege in that jurisdiction; and it does not appear to have been granted upon any supposition that even there it could be used in selling any but genuine preparations of Carlsbad spring water as such, but rather that it could not. 10 Rep.Pat.Design & Trade-mark Cas. 401. That would appear to be no bar to a suit there for using the trade-mark on other salts to deceive; and it cannot be any bar to such a suit here, out of that jurisdiction, and beyond the operation of the laws under which the decision was made. If any artificial salts have come to be known by the name of 'Carlsbad Salts,' from similarity or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black Hills Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. LaBelle's
...F.2d 245 (7th Cir. 1942); Pillsbury-Washburn, supra; California Fruit Canners' Ass'n v. Myer, 104 F. 82 (D.Md.1899); City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow, 68 F. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1895) aff'd 71 F. 167 (2nd Cir. 1895); Southern White Lead Co. v. Cary, 25 F. 125 (N.D.Ill.1885); Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n......
-
George W. Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co.
...of this evidence was reserved. In his opinion the district judge excluded it as irrelevant, citing as authority City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow, C.C., 68 F. 794, affirmed, 2 Cir., 71 F. 167. That was a suit in equity brought by the city of Carlsbad and others to enjoin the defendants from infrin......
-
Pillsbury-Washburn Flour-Mills Co. v. Eagle
...their cigars for those of the complainant, whereby the defendants might be profited, and the complainant might be injured. In City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow, 68 F. 794, the city Carlsbad, as proprietor of the Carlsbad springs, had for years evaporated the waters into salts, which were sold as '......
-
Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc.
...the mark within the foreign country that granted the registration. The district court had excluded them in reliance on City of Carlsbad v. Kutnow, 68 F. 794 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 71 F. 167 (2d Cir.1895). The Luft Court pointed out that in Carlsbad, "the purpose of introducing the English regis......