Wm Rogers Mfg. Co. v. R. W Rogers Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1895
• Citation: 66 F. 56
• Parties: WILLIAM ROGERS MANUF'G CO. v. R. W. ROGERS CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

66 F. 56

WILLIAM ROGERS MANUF'G CO. v. R. W. ROGERS CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

February 28, 1895

C. E Mitchell, for complainant.

C. H Duell, for defendants.

This was a suit by the William Rogers Manufacturing Company against the R. W. Rogers Company, Frederick F. Spyer, Robert W. Rogers, William A. Jameson, and Samuel J. Moore, to enjoin the infringement of complainant's trade-mark. Complainant moved for a preliminary injunction on the bill and affidavits showing the following facts:

William Rogers, for a long time prior to 1865, was engaged in the manufacture of silver-plated ware. In 1865 he associated himself with others in a copartnership under the name of the William Rogers Manufacturing Company, and in 1872 a corporation under the same name was organized by him and his associates. The silver-plated ware manufactured by Rogers the firm, and the corporation was uniformly of high quality and acquired a high reputation. All such ware was marked with certain trade-marks, in each of which the name 'Rogers' was the characteristic and important part; and the goods came to be known in the market by such trade-marks, and as 'Rogers' goods. The defendant Robert W. Rogers had been a salesman of silver-plated ware, but had never manufactured such ware, or been known to possess any special skill in its manufacture. The defendant Spyer was a dealer in silver-plated ware, chiefly of an inferiorquality. The defendants Jameson and Moore were officers of the Carter-Crume Company, a manufacturer of silver-plated ware. In 1894 Robert W. Rogers, Spyer, Jameson, and Moore organized the R. W. Rogers Company, and contracted with the Carter-Crume Company to manufacture for the R. W. Rogers Company silver-plated ware, of a quality inferior to that of the William Rogers Manufacturing Company's ware, which they caused to be stamped with marks in which the name 'Rogers' was the characteristic and important part, and which might readily be mistaken for the marks of the William Rogers Manufacturing Company. It was charged in the bill that the sole purpose of the defendants, in associating Robert W. Rogers with them, and in giving his name to the corporation, was to mislead the public into supposing that their goods were the goods of the William Rogers Manufacturing Company.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

This case seems closely analogous to William Rogers Manuf'g Co. v. Rogers & Spurr Manuf'g Co....