Frank v. Sleeper
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | W. ALLEN |
| Citation | 150 Mass. 583,23 N.E. 213 |
| Parties | FRANK et al. v. SLEEPER et al. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1890 |
150 Mass. 583
23 N.E. 213
FRANK et al.
v.
SLEEPER et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.
Jan. 4, 1890.
Appeal from supreme judicial court, Suffolk county.
Bill in equity brought by Daniel Frank and David Hirsch to enjoin Solomon S. Sleeper, Frank H. Sleeper, and Rufus A. Flanders, copartners, from infringing the trade-mark “N.S.,” used by plaintiffs to represent a cigar of a certain kind. Decree for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.
[150 Mass. 583]W.B. French, for appellants.
Geo. L. Huntress, for appellees.
W. ALLEN, J.
As no evidence is before us, the only question upon this appeal is whether the decree is warranted by the allegations of the bill. The objection is that the letters “N.S.” cannot, under the allegations of the bill and the terms of the decree, be held to be a valid and assignable trade-mark, because the bill and the decree show that the letters were used to indicate only the quality of the cigars, and not to distinguish them from other cigars of the same quality, or that they distinguished[150 Mass. 584]the cigars from those manufactured or sold by other persons, only as indicating that they were selected by Nathan Samuel personally. See Pub.St. c. 76, § 1; Manufacturing Co. v. Hosiery Mills, 129 Mass. 325;Hoxie v. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592, 10 N.E.Rep. 713. The argument for the defendants is that the bill and the decree show that the letters “N.S.” indicate the quality of the cigars, and that they had been personally selected by Nathan Samuel, the plaintiff's assignor, and do not show that they indicate the origin or ownership of the goods, or that they differ from other cigars, except as having been selected by Nathan Samuel personally. The bill alleges that Nathan Samuel was a dealer in cigars in Boston; that David Hirsch was a manufacturer of cigars in New York, and was engaged by Samuel to manufacture cigars for him; that in the year 1877 said Samuel adopted the letters “N.S.” as a trade-mark, to designate cigars of certain style and form, and made from a certain standard grade of tobacco, and of superior and uniform workmanship, manufactured by said Hirsch for said Samuel, and sold by him; that Hirsch continued to manufacture the said “N.S.” cigars exclusively for Samuel, and Samuel to sell them under the said trade-mark, until he sold his business, and assigned with it the trade-mark, to the plaintiff, who has since carried on the business at the same place; that since said purchase Hirsch has continued to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reading Stove Works, Orr, Painter & Co. v. S.M. Howes Co.
...its goods as those of the plaintiff. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Lowell Hosiery Mills, 129 Mass. 325, 327,37 Am. Rep. 362;Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N. E. 213;Regis v. Jaynes, 185 Mass. 458, 70 N. E. 480;Cohen v. Nagle, 190 Mass. 4, 76 N. E. 276,2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 964;Flagg Mfg. Co. v. Ho......
-
Regis v. J.A. Jaynes & Co.
...may constitute a valid trademark. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Lowell Hosiery Co., 129 Mass. 325, 327,37 Am. Rep. 362;Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N. E. 213;Samuels v. Spitzer, 177 Mass. 226, 58 N. E. 693; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., supra; [70 N.E. 481]Columbian Mill C......
-
Smith & Wesson, Inc. v. Galef, 26-249.
...of the letters 'M.F.H.' In Omo Mfg. Co. v. Mystic Rubber Co., supra, it was held that 'oMo' was infringed by 'dMd.' In Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N.E. 213, 'N.S.' was held to be infringed by 'N. & S.' I am of the opinion that the device used by the defendant, 'ST. W.,' in connectio......
-
Covell v. Chadwick
...v. Hunnewell, 122 Mass. 139;Sohier v. Johnson, 111 Mass. 238;Cement Co. v. Le Page, 147 Mass. 206, 17 N.E.Rep. 304; Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N.E.Rep. 213; Kidd v. Johnson, 100 U.S. 617, 620. But, so far as appears, the business in which the trade-marks were used by the owner of t......
-
Reading Stove Works, Orr, Painter & Co. v. S.M. Howes Co.
...its goods as those of the plaintiff. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Lowell Hosiery Mills, 129 Mass. 325, 327,37 Am. Rep. 362;Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N. E. 213;Regis v. Jaynes, 185 Mass. 458, 70 N. E. 480;Cohen v. Nagle, 190 Mass. 4, 76 N. E. 276,2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 964;Flagg Mfg. Co. v. Ho......
-
Regis v. J.A. Jaynes & Co.
...may constitute a valid trademark. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Lowell Hosiery Co., 129 Mass. 325, 327,37 Am. Rep. 362;Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N. E. 213;Samuels v. Spitzer, 177 Mass. 226, 58 N. E. 693; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., supra; [70 N.E. 481]Columbian Mill C......
-
Smith & Wesson, Inc. v. Galef, 26-249.
...of the letters 'M.F.H.' In Omo Mfg. Co. v. Mystic Rubber Co., supra, it was held that 'oMo' was infringed by 'dMd.' In Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N.E. 213, 'N.S.' was held to be infringed by 'N. & S.' I am of the opinion that the device used by the defendant, 'ST. W.,' in connectio......
-
Covell v. Chadwick
...v. Hunnewell, 122 Mass. 139;Sohier v. Johnson, 111 Mass. 238;Cement Co. v. Le Page, 147 Mass. 206, 17 N.E.Rep. 304; Frank v. Sleeper, 150 Mass. 583, 23 N.E.Rep. 213; Kidd v. Johnson, 100 U.S. 617, 620. But, so far as appears, the business in which the trade-marks were used by the owner of t......