Emilie Saxlehner v. Edward Wagner
| Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | No. 81,81 |
| Citation | 30 S.Ct. 298,216 U.S. 375,54 L.Ed. 525 |
| Parties | EMILIE SAXLEHNER, Petitioner, v. EDWARD WAGNER, William Wagner, and Sophia Wagner |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Antonio Knauth and John G. Johnson for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 376-377 intentionally omitted] Mr. Walter F. Murray for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 377-378 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
The petitioner is the owner of wells in Budapest from which comes the water known throughout the world by the arbitrary name, 'Hunyadi Janos,' given to it by her husband. The respondents make a bitter water in Cincinnati, and label it 'W. T. Wagner's Sons Carbonated Artificial Hunyadi, Conforming to Fresenius Analysis of Hunyadi Janos Springs.' Formerly they for a time labeled it but this label had been given up before the bill was brought. The petitioner seeks an injunction against the use of either 'Hunyadi Janos' or 'Hunyadi' on any water not coming from her wells. The circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit, in a more or less similar case, granted an injunction against the use of the word 'Hunyadi.' Thackeray v. Saxlehner, 60 C. C. A. 562, 125 Fed. 911. In the present suit, the circuit court and the circuit court of appeals, treating the right of the petitioners to 'Hunyadi Janos' as admitted, refused an injunction against the use of 'Hunyadi,' and, finding that no unfair competition was shown, dismissed the bill. 85 C. C. A. 321, 157 Fed. 745. A writ of certiorari was allowed by this court.
We see no reason for disturbing the finding of the courts below, that there was no unfair competition and no fraud. The real intent of the plaintiff's bill, it seems to us, is to extend the monopoly of such trademark or tradename as she may have to a monopoly of her type of bitter water, by preventing manufacturers from telling the public in a way that will be understood, what they are copying and trying to sell. But the plaintiff has no patent for the water, and the defendants have a right to reproduce it as nearly as they can. They have a right to tell the public what they are doing, and to get whatever share they can in the popularity of the water by advertising that they are trying to make the same article, and think that they succeed. If they do not convey, but, on the contrary, exclude, the notion that they are selling the plaintiff's goods, it is a strong proposition that when the article has a well-known name, they have not the right to explain by that name what they imitate. By doing so, they are not trying to get the good will of the name, but the good will of the goods. See Flagg Mfg. Co. v. Holway, 178 Mass. 83, 91, 59 N. E. 667; Chadwick v. Covell, 151 Mass. 190, 191, 6 L.R.A. 839, 21 Am. St. Rep. 442, 23 N. E. 1068. Although the application is different, the principle seems to be similar to the rule that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd.
...the imitator to use the originator's trade mark or service mark to inform the public of the source of the copy. 216 U.S. 375, 376, 30 S.Ct. 298, 298, 54 L.Ed. 525 (1910). Consistent with this theory, "[t]he use of a competitor's trademark for purposes of comparative advertising is not trade......
-
Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Ltd.
...recognized that one who has lawfully copied another's product can tell the public what he has copied. See Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U.S. 375, 380, 30 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed. 525 (1910); see also, e.g., Hypertherm, Inc. v. Precision Prods., Inc., 832 F.2d 697, 700-01 (1st Cir.1987) (stating that ......
-
Dixi-Cola Laboratories v. Coca-Cola Co.
...169, 16 S.Ct. 1002, 41 L.Ed. 118; Cf. Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U.S. 19, 21 S.Ct. 7, 45 L.Ed. 60; Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U.S. 375, 30 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed. 525; Selchow v. Baker, 93 N.Y. 59, 45 Am.Rep. 169; N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Central Lard Co., C.C. N.Y., 64 F. With this ru......
-
Skinner Mfg. Co. v. General Foods Sales Co.
...public accompanied by a fair and truthful statement of the ownership and source of manufacture." See, also, Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U.S. 375, 380, 381, 30 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed. 525. And so here, what the court concludes and declares is that, "by reason of structure and original meaning" the ......
-
The Road Not Taken: Initial Interest Confusion, Consumer Search Costs, and the Challenge of the Internet
...See. e.g., Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Fluid-Quip, Inc., 94 F.3d 376, 382 (7th Cir. 1996). 52. See supra note 41. 53. Cf. Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U.S. 375, 380-81 (1910) (allowing use of competitor's trademark for advertising because defendants "are not trying to get the good will of the name, bu......