Lichtenstein v. Goldsmith
| Decision Date | 23 January 1889 |
| Citation | 37 F. 359 |
| Parties | LICHTENSTEIN et al. v. GOLDSMITH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
George L. Huntress, for complainants.
Edward H. Pierce, for defendant.
The complainants are the owners of a trade-mark consisting of the head of an elk, with the word 'Elk' printed in large letters upon the face of the label, and this mark has been used by them for a number of years upon boxes of cigars. The defendant brands certain boxes of cigars made by him with substantially the same device. In view of the close identity of the two devices, the defendant cannot deny infringement but he places his defense on other grounds. I will consider those which are most important.
It is said that the trade-mark is invalid because it does not designate origin or ownership. This is manifestly unsound. The original design contained the letters 'A. L. & Bro.,' standing for A. Lichtenstein & Brother, and, as now used, it has the words printed on it, 'Patented by the Elk Cigar Factory, June 15, 1875. ' There is also stamped upon the box the district in New York in which the factory is located. Since 1875 these cigars of the Elk brands have been made by A. Lichtenstein & Bro., or their successors, A. Lichtenstein, Son & Co., and their factory has been known as the 'Elk Cigar Factory.' It seems to me that the trade-mark sufficiently indicates origin and ownership.
Again it is said that the complainants deceive the public, in that they allow the boxes to be labeled with the names of dealers to whom the cigars are sold, or for whom they are made. But this is shown to be a custom in the cigar trade, and I do not think it results in any deception or false representation. All these cigars are in fact made at the Elk Factory, and they are so stamped, and when the public buy them, they are purchasing a genuine Elk cigar, made by these complainants; and I do not see that the additional label put on the box in accordance with a custom of the trade is in any just sense such a false representation as should invalidate the trade-mark.
It is further urged as a defense that the complainants make different brands of cigars, all of which are called 'Elk.' But if, as appears, these brands are designated by something which distinguishes one from the other, then no deception is practiced. I see no reason why this trade-mark should not be used in good faith on different brands or grades of cigars all of which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co.
...and excellence of the article, and neither know nor care who makes it. Brewery Co. v. Powell (1897) App. Cas. 710, 716; Lichtenstein v. Goldsmith (C.C.) 37 F. 359. conclusions which must be drawn from the facts of this case, therefore, are that by industry and energy the appellee has built ......
-
Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders
...the name of his customer on the article along with the mark. Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co., supra, 108 F. at 824; Lichtenstein v. Goldsmith, 37 F. 359, 360 (D.Mass.1889). But the Court is not presented here with a question of abandonment of the mark "Wrist Rocket." The question it must answer......
-
Putnam Nail Co. v. Dulaney
......222;. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf. 599; White. v. Schlect, 9 W.N. 77; Ferguson v. Davoll. Mills, 7 Phila. 253; Lichtenstein v. Goldsmith,. 37 F. 359. A property right cannot be acquired in a device,. adopted as a trade-mark to distinguish a certain grade of. nails from ......
-
Petrolia Mfg. Co. v. Bell & Bogart Soap Co.
...trade-mark, if any such indication is necessary. Browne, Trade-Marks, Secs. 144, 145, 697. Godillot v. Harris 81 N.Y. 263; Lichtenstein v. Goldsmith (C.C.) 37 F. 359; Baking-Powder Co. v. Raymond (C.C.) 70 F. Feder v. Benkert, 18 C.C.A. 549, 70 F. 613. Point 10: 'The receiver abandoned all ......