State v. Gibbs
| Decision Date | 31 March 1874 |
| Citation | 56 Mo. 133 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN S. GIBBS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.
Vastine & Nicholson, for Plaintiff in Error.
This was a proceeding commenced in the Court of Criminal Correction, under the provisions of the law in reference to trade marks.
The affidavit charged that Lea & Perrin were co-partners, and that the firm had for many years past been manufacturers and dealers in a sauce known and called Lea & Perrin's Worcestershire sauce, and that in the use and sale of said sauce, said firm usually affixed and used a label and wrapper, a sample of which was appended. The affidavit then alleges that on a certain day the defendant unlawfully did have in his possession a certain brand, and printed label wrapper representation and imitation of the said label and wrapper of the firm of Lea & Perrin, for the purpose of using the same upon and in connection with a certain article made, manufactured, prepared and compounded by said defendant, or his servants and agents, or person or persons, other than the said firm of Lea & Perrin, and passing the same off upon the community as the original wares, goods and compounds of the firm of Lea & Perrin, and that the firm of Lea & Perrin did business in the City of London, England, and had no place of business in the county of St. Louis.
The affidavit further charged that the defendant kept for sale a certain article of merchandise and preparation upon which, and in connection with which, were certain forged, counterfeit and imitation labels, brands and wrappers placed, affixed and used, which were intended to represent the said merchandise and preparation as the genuine goods, merchandise and preparation of certain other parties, to-wit: the firm of Lea & Perrin, etc.
To this information the defendant filed his motion to dismiss: 1. Because the complaint did not charge upon the defendant the violation of any statute known to the laws of the State of Missouri; 2. Because the law under which the defendant was prosecuted was not intended to, nor did it, protect merchants or manufacturers doing business in any other place than in the State of Missouri; and, 3. Because the law on which the complaint was based, was for the protection of merchants and manufacturers doing business in this State.
This motion was by the court sustained, and the State sued out its writ of error.
The determination of the case must be governed by construing the act to protect merchants and manufacturers against counterfeit trade marks, approved February 22, 1870, .
The first section affixes a penalty for forging or counterfeiting trade marks, and provides that any person or persons who shall knowingly and wilfully make, forge or counterfeit any representation, likeness, similitude, copy or imitation of the private label, brand, stamp,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Bishop
...the one in question. Prior to that time the statute law was only intended for the protection of foreign and domestic trade-marks. State v. Gibbs, 56 Mo. 133. all statutes pertaining to crimes and their punishments should be strictly construed, and nothing left to intendment, they should not......
-
Atlas Assur. Co., Ltd. v. Atlas Ins. Co.
...of trade-marks or of trade-names to protect such trade-marks and trade-names against piracy, no matter where such owners reside. State v. Gibbs, 56 Mo. 133; Peck v. Peck, 113 F. 291 (51 C.C.A. 251, 62 L. R. A. 81); Taylor v. Carpenter, 3 Story 458, F. Cas. No. 13,784. In the latter case, Mr......
-
Atlas Assur. Co. v. Atlas Ins. Co.
...of trade-marks or of trade-names to protect such trade-marks and trade-names against piracy, no matter where such owners reside. State v. Gibbs, 56 Mo. 133;Peck Bros. v. Peck, 113 Fed. 300, 51 C. C. A. 251, 62 L. R. A. 81; Taylor v. Carpenter, 3 Story, 458, Fed. Cas. No. 13,784. In the latt......