Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols
| Citation | 155 F. 302 |
| Parties | HAVANA COMMERCIAL CO. v. NICHOLS et al. |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1907 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Hotchkiss & Barber, for defendants.
This seems to be a properly registered trade-mark, under the act of 1905. It is not the 'name of an individual'; at least the court is informed of no individual, historical or other, whose name was or is 'La Carolina,' and neither the affidavits nor the briefs disclose the existence of any such person. Nor is it a 'geographical name or term.' Defendant's counsel was unable upon the argument to identify geographically any place as 'La Carolina,' although reference was made to North Carolina and South Carolina and to the Caroline Islands. The term 'La Coralina' is manifestly an infringement. The mere transposition of the vowels 'a' and 'o' effects a change hardly appreciable by either the eye or the ear.
It appears, however, by defendants' affidavits, that they began the putting up and selling of cigars under that term 19 years ago, that they advertised them extensively, and that their sales have been large and continuous. Complainant asserts that this was without the knowledge of itself or its predecessors; but it is thought that all questions can better be determined at final hearing upon pleadings and proofs, when the facts will be more satisfactorily presented. It is no doubt well settled that mere delay or acquiescence will not defeat the remedy by injunction, although it may debar complainant from any recovery of profits or damages. Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514, 9 Sup.Ct. 143, 32 L.Ed. 526. But such laches may, in proper cases, afford good ground for further delay in putting a stop by injunction to an established business.
It would seem that the equities can be more satisfactorily considered at final hearing than upon motion on affidavits, and for that reason the present application is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.
...sufficient to avoid a deceptive misdescription of the goods. A. Bauer & Co. v. Siegert, 7 Cir., 120 F. 81, 84; Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols, C.C.S.D.N.Y., 155 F. 302. The registered term neither has nor professes to have any relation to the source of its coffee, the place of manufacture......
-
Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc. v. Winchester Co., 131.
...198 U.S. 118, 25 Sup.Ct. 609, 49 L.Ed. 972; Brown Chemical Co. v. Myer, 139 U.S. 540, 11 Sup.Ct. 625, 35 L.Ed. 247; Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols (C.C.) 155 F. 302; Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Publishing Co., 237 618, 622, 35 Sup.Ct. 708, 59 L.Ed. 1148. The court below held that the trade-m......
-
Wesson v. Galef
...... Steinmetz (C.C.) 137 F. 168, Judge Lacombe after a delay. of 'many years'; and in Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols (C.C.) 155 F. 302, after 19 years. The Circuit. Court of Appeals for ......
-
In re Plymouth Motor Corporation
...bearing upon the question will be found in Phenix Cheese Co. v. Kirp (1917) 176 App. Div. 735, 164 N. Y. S. 71; Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols (C. C. N. Y. 1907) 155 F. 302. Appellant's brief cites us to Ex parte Jewell Belting Co., 110 O. G. 309, 1904 C. D. Registration was there sought ......