Ingersoll v. Doyle
| Decision Date | 21 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | 827. |
| Citation | 247 F. 620 |
| Parties | INGERSOLL et al. v. DOYLE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Nathan Matthews and William G. Thompson, both of Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.
Walter Pyne, of Lynn, Mass., for defendants.
The defendants dispute neither the facts alleged in the bill nor those set forth in the plaintiffs' affidavits. All said facts are admitted for the purposes of this hearing. Nor have the defendants contended that their dealings, as thus admitted, with watches of the plaintiffs' manufacture bearing the marks, containing the guaranty, and marketed in the boxes which the bill describes, do not violate the plaintiffs' exclusive rights in the registered mark 'Ingersoll,' as designating watches of their manufacture, and in the words 'Midget' and 'Radiolite,' used in connection therewith as designating various grades of Ingersoll watches respectively.
I consider it clear that no attempt to justify the defendants' doings above referred to could succeed. In effect, they are sales of watches under representations that the watches sold are made and guaranteed by the plaintiffs. But such representations are untrue. An Ingersoll watch of either grade referred to, or of any grade, after the defendants' additions thereto or alterations therein have been made, is no longer what its makers offer to the public as a guaranteed Ingersoll watch; it has become a new construction. General Electric, etc., Co. v. Re-New Lamp Co (C.C.) 121 F. 164; Id. (C.C.) 128 F. 154; Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co., 215 F. 692 131 C.C.A. 626; Coca-Cola Co. v. Bennett, 238 F 513, 151 C.C.A. 449.
Jurisdiction in this court appears, not only from the allegations that the plaintiffs own the above registered trade-mark, but also from the allegations showing diverse citizenship of the parties.
The defendants' motion to dismiss must be denied. The plaintiffs' right to an injunction is regarded as established.
The defendants have requested modifications in the decree submitted by the plaintiffs, according to which the defendants are enjoined--
'from selling or offering for sale or delivering to others for sale any watch as an Ingersoll watch, which, though originating in the complainants' factory, has been altered or added to so that it no longer is in its entirety the product of' the plaintiffs.
The defendants ask either the elimination of the above, or that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BULOVA WATCH COMPANY v. Allerton Company
...repair department was about eight, or one-tenth of one per cent of all the units sold. Defendants differentiate the decision in Ingersoll v. Doyle, 247 F. 620, on the facts. They claim that the dial (involved in that opinion) is a part of the movement and the substitution of a new one is an......
-
Champion Spark Plug Co v. Sanders
...it would be a misnomer to call the article by its original name, even though the words 'used' or 'repaired' were added. Cf. Ingersoll v. Doyle, D.C., 247 F. 620. But no such practice is involved here. The repair or reconditioning of the plugs does not give them a new design. It is no more t......
-
Standard Oil Co. v. California Peach & Fig Growers
...of a combination confers no right upon him to use the trade-mark of that ingredient as the trade-mark for the new article. Ingersoll v. Doyle (D. C.) 247 F. 620; Lambert Pharmacal Co. v. Listerated Co. (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 122. But such purchaser may state the nature of the component parts, th......
-
Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Reich
...Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 368, 44 S.Ct. 350, 68 L.Ed. 731; Coca-Cola Co. v. Bennett, 8 Cir., 238 F. 513; Ingersoll v. Doyle, D.C. Mass., 247 F. 620; General Electric Co. v. Re-New Lamp Co., C.C. Mass., 128 F. 154; Auto Acetylene Light Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co., 6 Cir., 264 F. ......