Stachelberg v. Ponce
| Decision Date | 17 December 1888 |
| Citation | 9 S.Ct. 200,128 U.S. 686,32 L.Ed. 569 |
| Parties | STACHELBERG et al. v. PONCE. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a trade-mark case. The principal relief asked by the appellants, who were the plaintiffs below, is a decree enjoining the appellee, who was the defendant below, his agents and servants, from using as a trade name in their business of manufacturing and selling cigars, the words 'Normandie,' or 'E. P. Normanda,' or 'La Normanda,' or 'Normanda;' such use of those words being, it is alleged, a violation of the right of the plaintiffs to the exclusive use of the words 'La Normandi' and 'Normandi' in their business of manufacturing and selling cigars of a certain kind.
It is alleged, among other things, that one Asher Bijur, of New York, was engaged from 1858 to 1865 in manufacturing and packing cigars of various grades and shapes, some of which, of superior quality, were called 'La Normandi,' and were put up in boxes containing 250 each, labeled and branded with those words; that, being of fine stock, skillfully made, and of a shape that pleased the eye, his cigars of that kind became widely known, gaining great favor with the public, particularly in the New England states; that the first use by any one engaged in the manufacture, packing, or sale of cigars, of the words 'La Normandi' or 'Normandi' was by him, those words constituting his trade-mark for cigars of the above description; that on or about February, 1865, he assigned, sold, transferred, and conveyed to the plaintiff Michael Stachelberg, his heirs and assigns, all his right, title and interest in and to the exclusive use of the words 'La Normandi' and 'Normandi;' that on or about January 1, 1873, the plaintiffs formed a partnership under the firm name of M. Stachelberg & Co., said trade-mark becoming their joint property; that since said assignment they have been engaged in manufacturing cigars under the names 'La Normandi' and 'Normandi,' bestowing great care upon their packing, putting them up in bunches, (each bunch being tied with a peculiar colored and striped ribbon,) and offering them for sale in boxes containing 250 cigars each, branded with the words 'La Normandi;' and that they have incurred great expense in bringing such cigars, so named, to public attention, whereby large profits have accrued from their sale. The bill also states that on the 19th of February, 1876, the plaintiffs deposited in the patent-office at Washington the name 'Normandi' as a trade-mark, and March 7, 1876, received from that office a certificate showing such record; that after said assignment, and up to the date of and since such deposit, they have used the word 'Normandi,' with the prefix 'La,' and that by virtue of such assignment, and of their uninterrupted use of the words "La Normandi," they acquired and have the sole and exclusive right to use them as a trade-mark. It is further alleged that since January 1, 1881, the defendant, Ponce, has been manufacturing, and causing to be manufactured, and offering for sale, cigars substantially similar in shape, size, and outward appearance to their La Normandi cigars, and has put them in boxes of the same pattern, generl shape, and size, and tied with ribbon colored and striped, and resembling the ribbons used by them, his boxes being branded some with "Normanda," some "E.P Normanda," and others "Normandie;" whereby the defendant has fraudulently imposed, and, unless restrained from so doing, will continue to impose, upon the public his cigars as the real "La Normandi" cigars, manufactured, put up, and sold first by Bijur, and afterwards by the plaintiffs, and whereby, also, great and irreperable injury will be done to the plaintiffs in their business.
The defendant admits in his answer that he has sold cigars under the brand or label of 'La Normanda;' but those words, he alleges, have always been accompanied on the boxes or packages containing them by the words or 'E. Ponce,' or 'Ernesto Ponce,' and sometimes by the words, 'Portland, Maine,' thus indicating the manufacturer, and the place at which his cigars were made. Denying that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. A. Gaines & Co. v. E. Whyte Grocery, Fruit & Wine Co.
...17 C. C. A. 652; Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460; Corwin v. Daley, 7 Bos. (N. Y.) 222; Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. Pr. 64; Stachellberg et al. v. Ponce, 128 U.S. 686; Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 322; Coates Thread Co., 149 U.S. 569. (6) In the absence of a technical trade-mark, the plaintif......
-
Corbin v. Gould
...Co. v. Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166; Tobacco Co. v. Finzer, 128 U. S. 182, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 60; Stachelberg v. Ponce, 128 U. S. 686, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143. Even conceding that the complainants may claim a trade-mark for th......
-
Symonds v. Jones
...goods, and hence should not receive protection from the court. It would wrong Jones, as well as the public. Stachelberg v. Ponce, 23 Fed. Rep. 430, 128 U. S. 686, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; Medicine Co. v. Wood, 108 U. S. 218; 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436. It is plain that, while thus using the labels, th......
-
Watkins v. Landon
...exclusive right to make or sell. Canal Co. v. Clark, 80 U.S. 311, 13 Wall. 311, 20 L.Ed. 581; Stachelberg v. Ponce, 128 U.S. 686, (9 S.Ct. 200, 32 L.Ed. 569;) Van Beil v. Prescott, 82 N.Y. Marshall v. Pinkham, supra. It is of little importance that, by reason of the plaintiff's threatened p......