Evans v. Von Laer
| Decision Date | 08 September 1887 |
| Parties | EVANS and another v. VON LAER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Gray & Swift and Austin G. Fox, for defendant.
The complainants by their bill claim, as against the defendant the exclusive use of the word 'Montserrat,' as a designation for lime juice. Montserrat is the name of a small island in the West Indies, and the complainants, who reside in Liverpool, are the consignees of the Montserrat Company Limited, a corporation having large plantations on the island. The defendant lives in Boston, and is a dealer in lemon and lime-fruit juice. Formerly he did business as Von Laer & Co., or as the Von Laer Fruit-Juice Co. It appears that on labels bearing the name Von Laer & Co., the lime juice was designated as imported from Montserrat. It is not shown that this lime juice was not in fact from Montserrat. On the contrary, the evidence is that the defendant, or Von Laer & Co., bought lime juice on the island, and had it shipped to this country. The fact that the Montserrat Company may have acquired a high reputation for the purity and strength of their article, and that the importation of Von Laer & Co. may have been inferior in quality, can make no difference, unless the defendant, by improper means and devices, has sought to make the public believe that he was selling the article made by the Montserrat Company. In the absence of fraud the complainants cannot enjoin the defendant from the use of a geographical name. This was settled in the case of Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, where the court refused to enjoin the defendant against calling their coal 'Lackawanna 'coal,' and where it was held that no one can apply the name of a district of country to a well-known article of commerce, and obtain thereby such an exclusive right to the application as to prevent others inhabiting the district, or dealing in similar articles coming from the district, from truthfully using the same designation. The fact that such use by another person may cause the public to make a mistake as to the origin or ownership of the product can make no difference, if it is true in its application to the goods of one as to the other. Purchasers may be mistaken, but they are not deceived by false representation, and equity will not enjoin against telling the truth. It is manifest, then, that to entitle the complainants to any relief sought by this bill, some fraud must be proved.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co.
... ... automobilists as appellee's genuine gas packages, were ... the plainest sort of infringement. Evans v. Von Laer ... (C.C.) 32 F. 153; Hostetter v. Becker (C.C.) 73 ... F. 297; Hostetter v. Sommers (C.C) 84 F. 333; ... Pontefact v. Isenberger ... ...
-
General Elec. Co. v. Speicher
...may continue to use the trademark. Two circuits have held that such trademark abuses (which are very old, see, e.g., Evans v. Von Laer, 32 F. 153 (C.C.D.Mass.1887)) violate section 1114(1)(a). See Burger-King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492 (11th Cir.1983); El Greco Leather Products Co.......
-
Putnam Nail Co. v. Dulaney
...for the other: Gilman v. Hunnewell, 122 Mass. 139; Desmond's App., 103 Pa. 126; Liggett & M. Tobacco Co. v. Finzer, 128 U.S. 182, Evans v. Van Leer, 32 F. 153. NAME. CASE. Lake Cylinder Stokes v. Landgraff, 17 Barb. 608. Schiedam Schnapps Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr. 64. Club House Gin. Co......
-
Russia Cement Co. v. Le Page
... ... invasion of the plaintiff's right by the defendants ... Manufacturies v. Wilson, 3 App.Cas. 389; Evans ... v. Von Laer, 32 F. 153; Frazer v. Lubricator Co., and ... Gillis v. Hall, ubi supra. The decree, if for the plaintiffs, ... should save its ... ...