Scheuer v. Muller
| Decision Date | 17 March 1896 |
| Citation | 74 F. 225 |
| Parties | SCHEUER v. MULLER et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
The opinion of LACOMBE, Circuit Judge, in the circuit court, upon the motion for preliminary injunction, was as follows:
A careful examination of the affidavits and of the exhibits has satisfied me that the form of label used by defendants, and annexed to the complaint, was devised with intent to delude the purchasing consumer into the belief that he was buying complainant's preparation of chicory, and that it is well calculated to effect its purpose. The circumstances that it was adopted only after a former infringer of complainant's trade-mark came into defendants' employ is most suggestive, and so is the fact that defendants before that were using a form of label which was not imitative of complainant's. The alteration was made intentionally, and it is not difficult to infer its object.
It is conceded that the statement on defendants' label that they have registered their trade-mark is false. The further statement that the contents of defendants' package is 'Chicorien Kaffee aus der Fabrik von E. B. Muller & Co. in Roulers (Belgien), ' is misleading and unfair, for defendants admit that the only thing done in Belgium is to 'harvest' the chicory root, the roasting, grinding and further manufacturing of the raw material being done here. Very many labels of American origin similar to complainant's have been put in evidence, and the explanation of this wide-spread imitation of packages is found in the affidavits. Changes in the tariff have made it possible for American manufacturers to import the raw material (chicory root), and make it into the well-known coffee substitute in this country. The infant industry thus established, however, so far as the record in this case shows, seems to have scrupulously avoided indicating to the consumer the origin of its products. On the contrary, with more or less variance, so as to have plenty of arguable differences to refer to when brought into court, most of the American manufacturers represented by the exhibits in this case have manifestly endeavored to so dress up their goods that the purchasing consumer, usually himself a foreigner may be deluded into buying the domestic product as foreign made. Some of the exhibits which were presented on the argument, but not left in court, show how easy it is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T & T MFG. CO. v. AT Cross Co.
...of infringement, an intentional infringer will usually take care that there are plenty of what Judge Lacombe, in Scheuer v. Muller, 74 F. 225, 228, 20 C.C.A. 161, called "arguable differences", to stand upon when brought into court, but resemblances to the article he desires to imitate suff......
-
William Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. LP Larson, Jr., Co., 488.
...or have not knowingly put into the hands of the retail dealers the means of deceiving the ultimate purchaser. Scheuer v. Muller et al. (C. C. A.) 74 F. 225, 20 C. C. A. 161; Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 94 F. 651; National Biscuit Co. v. Baker et al. (C. C.) 95 F. 135; Fairb......
-
Wolf Bros. & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.
... ... the hands of the retail dealers the means of deceiving the ... ultimate purchaser. Scheuer v. Muller et al ... (C.C.A.) 74 F. 225, 20 C.C.A. 161; Dennison Mfg. Co ... v. Thomas Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 94 F. 651; National ... Biscuit Co. v ... ...
-
Reading Stove Works, Orr, Painter & Co. v. S.M. Howes Co.
...public.' See, also, W. R. Lynn Shoe Co. v. Auburn Lynn Shoe Co., 100 Me. 461, 62 A. 499, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 460, and Scheuer v. Muller, 74 F. 225, 20 C. C. A. 161, 165, and notes, for a collection and review of the cases. this branch of the case, which has not been argued by the defendant's......