Higgins v. Keuffel

• Decision Date: 11 May 1891
• Citation: 11 S.Ct. 731,35 L.Ed. 470,140 U.S. 428
• Parties: HIGGINS et al. v. KEUFFEL et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

140 U.S. 428

11 S.Ct. 731

35 L.Ed. 470

HIGGINS et al. v. KEUFFEL et al.

May 11, 1891.

[Statement of Case from pages 428-430 intentionally omitted] Wm. A. Redding and Chas. B. Alexander, for appellants.

Louis C. Raegener, for appellees.

Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The complainants found their claim to an injunction restraining the use of their registered label by the defendants, and to an accounting for the profits made by them on the sales of bottles of ink with such labels, upon the ground that one of their number had secured a copyright of the same for the period of 28 years from the time it was registered, and had transferred to them his exclusive right to its use for 5 years from May 1, 1885. On the other hand, the defendants contest the claim upon the ground that the constitution does not authorize a copyright of labels, which are simply intended to designate the articles upon which they are placed; and also on the ground that, if labels are within the copyright law, the conditions of that law were not complied with. The clause of the constitution under which congress is authorized to legislate for the protection of authors and inventors is contained in the eighth section of article 1, which declares that 'the congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.' This provision evidently has reference only to such writings and discoveries as are the result of intellectual labor. It was so held in Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, where the court said that, 'while the word 'writings' may be literally construed, as it has been, to include original designs for engravings, prints, etc., it is only such as are original, and are founded in the creative powers of the mind.' It does not have any reference to labels which simply designate or describe the articles to which they are attached, and which have no value separated from the articles, and no possible influence upon science or the useful arts. A label on a box of fruit, giving its name as 'grapes,' even with the addition of adjectives characterizing their quality as 'black,' or 'white,' or 'sweet,' or indicating the place of their growth, as Malaga or California, does not come within the object of the clause. The use of such labels upon those articles has no connection with the progress of science and the useful arts. So a label designating ink in a bottle as 'black,' 'blue,' or 'red,' or 'indelible,' or 'insoluble,' or as possessing any other quality, has nothing to do with such progress. It cannot, therefore, be held by any reasonable argument that the protection of mere labels is within the purpose of the clause in question. To be entitled to a copyright the article must have by itself some value as a composition, at least to the extent of serving some purpose other than as a mere advertisement or designation of the subject to which it is attached. This was held substantially in Scoville v. Toland, 6 West. Law J. 84, which was before the circuit court of the United States for the district of Ohio as early as 1848. There application was made for an injunction to restrain the use of a label containing the words: 'Doctor Rodgers' Compound Syrup of Liverwort and Tar. A safe and certain cure for consumption of the lungs spitting of blood, coughs, colds, asthma, pain in the side, bronchitis, whooping-cough, and all pulmonary affections. The genuine is signed Andrew Rodgers,'—which the complainant had entered in the clerk's office of the district court of the United States for the district of Ohio, and n o ther respects complied with the law. It was shown by several affidavits that the medicine prepared by the complainant was efficacious in diseases. The defendants insisted that the label was not the subject of copyright. In considering this question Mr. Justice MCLEAN, presiding in the circuit court, referred to the act of congress of 1831, giving a copyright to the author of any book or books, (4 St. c. 16, p. 436,) and held that the label was not a book within its meaning, although it had been decided under the English statute that a composition upon a single sheet might be considered as a book. Clementi v. Golding, 2 Camp. 25, 32. But Mr. Justice MCLEAN, distinguishing the case before him, said: 'The label which the complainant claims to be a book refers to a certain medicinal preparation, and was designed to be an accompaniment of it. Like other labels, it was intended for no other use than to be pasted on the vials or bottles which contained the medicine. As a composition distinct from the medicine, it can be of no value. It asserts a fact that 'Doctor...