Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Saxlehner v. Wagner
Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U.S. 375 (1910)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1910-02-21
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- finding that trademark holders may not keep “manufacturers from telling the public in a way that will be understood ... what they are copying and trying to sell”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Saxlehner v. Wagner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 43 opinions
SAXLEHNERv. WAGNER,216 U.S. 375(1910)
30 S.Ct. 298
SAXLEHNERv. WAGNER.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
No. 81.
Argued January 17, 1910.
Decided February 21, 1910.
THE facts, which involve the right of the owners of the
Hunyadi Janos Springs to enjoin the sale of artificial Hunyadi
water, are stated in the opinion.
Petitioner has always been solicitous in suppressing the use of the Hunyadi name on any artificial products. SeeHunyadiCase,179 U.S. 19;Flower Mills Co. v.Eagle, 86 F. 608;Thackerayv.Saxlehner, 125 F. 911.
Appellees' manufactured product is not artificial Hunyadi water. See work of Count Maillard de Marafy, cited inSingerMfg. Co. v.June Co.,163 U.S. 169,199.
Appellees' labels and advertisements are untruthful and designed to reap the benefits of complainant's reputation; if the word Hunyadi shall be allowed to the defendants, the door will be opened to wholesale fraud.
The name of a spring and the water bottled therefrom is protected, according to principles applied to trade-marks in general.Congress Spring Co. v.High Rock Congress SpringCo.,45 N.Y. 291;Apollinaris Co. v.Scherer, 27 F. 18;Hillv.Lockwood, 32 F. 389;Dunbarv.Glenn,42 Wis. 118;Carlsbadv.Thackeray, 57 F. 18;Northcuttv.Turney(Ky.),41 S.W.Rep. 21;Hunyadi Cases,179 U.S. 19.
Such names, as can be properly called geographical names, can only be legally used by those whose products come from the geographical region in question.Newmanv.Alvord,51 N.Y. 189;A.F. Pike Mfg. Co. v.Cleveland Stone Co., 35 F. 896;Pillsburyv.Eagle, 86 F. 608;Anheuserv.Miller, 87 F. 864;California Fruit Canners' Assn. v.Myer, 104 F. 82;Am. Watch Co. v.U.S. Watch Co.,173 Mass. 85;Morgan Envelope Co. v.Walton, 82 F. 469;Key West Cigar Assn. v.Rosenbloom, 171 F. 296;Siegertv.Gandolfi(C.C.A.), 149 F. 100.
A proprietary interest in the terms or symbols used is notPage 377essential to the maintenance of any suit to enjoin the misuse of these terms or symbols. An interest in the good-will of the business or any other property threatened by such misuse is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to an injunction.Cohenv.Nagle,76 N.E.Rep. 276,279;Scrivenv.North, 134 F. 366, 376;Collinsplattv.Finlayson, 88 F. 693;Draperv.Skerrett, 116 F. 206;Shaverv.Heller, 108 F. 821, 832;Manitowocv.Wm. Numsen, 93 F. 196.
It is no defense that the full name "Hunyadi Janos" was dropped from the defendants' labels before the bringing of the suit.Saxlehnerv.Eisner, 147 F. 189;India RubberCo. v.Rubber Comb Co., 45 N.Y. Super. Ct. 258;Lowv.Hart,90 N.Y. 457;Plant Co. v.May Mercantile Co., 153 F. 229;Hutchinsonv.Blumberg, 51 F. 829.
Even if appellees may use the word "Hunyadi" with proper correctives and explanatives, sufficient care has not been taken to distinguish. "Hunyadi" is emphasized. "Wagner" and "Artificial" are inconspicuous on the label and in advertising. Both are omitted in the price list. The distinctions are insufficient.Fullerv.Huff, 104 F. 141;Hansenv.Siegel Cooper Co., 106 F. 691, 692;Menendezv.Holt,128 U.S. 514,521;Shaverv.Heller, 108 F. 821, 833;Carlsbadv.Schultz, 78 F. 469;Bakerv.Slack, 130 F. 514.
That others have infringed is no defense.Singer Mfg. Co. v.June Mfg. Co.,163 U.S. 169;Taylorv.Carpenter, 3 Story, 458; and see 2 Wood M. 21.
The fact, even if proven, that the artificial product of appellees is better than the genuine natural water is no justification for calling it spurious "Hunyadi." The public is entitled to the very thing it expects and cannot be deceived even for its own benefit.Singer Co. v.Loog, 8 App. Cas. 29;Coatsv.Holbrook, 2 Sand. Chan. 586;Pillsburyv.Pillsbury Co., 64 F. 841;McLeanv.Fleming,96 U.S. 245,252;Cleveland Stone Co. v.Wallace, 52 F. 431.
Where a manifest liability to deception exists in defendant'sPage 378use of plaintiff's trade name, even though there be no strict trade-mark right involved therein, it is not necessary to bring proof of an actual deception.Manufacturing Co. v.Trainer,101 U.S. 51;Taendsticksfabriksv.Myers,139 N.Y. 364;Fullerv.Huff, 104 F. 141;City of Carlsbadv.Kutnow, 71 F. 167;Biscuit Co. v.Baker, 95 F. 135;Leev.Haley, 5 Chan. App. 155;North Cheshire c.Brewing Co. v.Manchester Brewery Co. (1889), App. Cas. 83;Am. Waltham Watch Co. v.U.S. Watch Co.,173 Mass. 85;Lawrence Mfg. Co. v.Tennessee Mfg. Co.,138 U.S. 537;Coatsv.Merrick Thread Co.,149 U.S. 562, andElgin Nat.Watch Co. v.Illinois Watch Co.,179 U.S. 665, do not militate against this rule, nor is the law established in this country different from that applied in England on this point.Mr. Walter F. Murrayfor respondents:
This court in the case ofSaxlehnerv.Eisner MendelsonCo.,179 U.S. 19,38, decided that the complainant has lost her title to the word "Hunyadi" as a trade-mark.Menendezv.Holt,128 U.S. 514;Saxlehnerv.Nielsen,179 U.S. 45;LaRepublic Francaisev.Saratoga Vichy Springs,191 U.S. 426;Moorev.Auwell, 172 Fed.Rep. 508, 513.
Where the alleged infringers of a trade-mark have been using it under a show of right, or in the absence of fraud, neglect of the owner of the right to pursue the infringers, if continued for a long period of time will cause the mark to become public property. This will be the case, especially where the infringers are numerous.Virginia Hot Springsv.Hageman Co., 138 F. 855; S.C., aff'd 144 F. 1023;La RepubliqueFrancaisev.Schultz, 102 F. 154;Fordv.Foster, L.R. 7 Ch. 628;Rowlandv.Michell, 13 R.P.C. 457; S.C., 14 R.P.C. 37;Ripleyv.Baudey, 14 R.P.C. 591;Hyde Co.'sTrade-mark, 7 C.D. 724; Sebastian on Trade-Marks, 4th ed., 202;Manufacturing Co. v.Williams, 68 F. 489;N.Y. GrapeSugar Co. v.Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 18 Fed.Rep. 638;Wyethv.Stone, Fed. Cas. No. 18, 107;Page 379Coatsv.Thread Co.,149 U.S. 562. Analogous cases are found in reports referring to patent rights.Woodmansee Hewitt Co. v.Williams, 68 F. 489;Leggettv.The Standard OilCo.,149 U.S. 285.
A trade-mark in "Hunyadi" could not be held in common by various owners of Hungarian springs, the waters of which were sold competitively in the United States.Del. H. Canal Co. v.Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 328;Columbia Mill Co. v.Alcorn,150 U.S. 460,463;Lawrence Mfg. Co. v.Tennessee Mfg. Co.,138 U.S. 537,549.
It is incumbent upon complainant to show that defendants have sold their products as that of the complainant. CasessupraandCanal Co. v.Clark, 13 Wall. 311;Lawrence Mfg. Co. v.Tennessee Mfg. Co.,138 U.S. 537;Coatsv.Am. Thread Co.,149 U.S. 562;Nat. Elgin Watch Co. v.Ill. Watch Co.,179 U.S. 665;French Republicv.Saratoga Vichy,191 U.S. 427;Howe Scale Co. v.Wyckoff, Seamans Co.,198 U.S. 118;LaRepublique Francaisev.Schultz, 94 F. 500.
Deception of the public, as to the ingredients of an article of merchandise, is not unfair competition in trade, and is not actionable at the suit of a private individual or group of such individuals, in the absence of legislation.American WashboardCo. v.Saginaw Mfg. Co., 103 F. 281;New York R.Cement Co. v.Coplay Cement Co., 44 F. 277;WordenCo. v.California Fig Syrup Co.,187 U.S. 517,527.
Defendants have not deceived the public about the ingredients of their artificial "Hunyadi."
Defendants have insisted, before the public in all their literature and advertisements, that artificial mineral waters are better than the natural mineral waters.
We see no reason for disturbing the finding of the courts below that there was no unfair competition and no fraud. The real intent of the plaintiff's bill, it seems to us, is to extend the monopoly of such trade-mark or trade name as she may have to a monopoly of her type of bitter water, by preventing manufacturers from telling the public in a way that will be understood what they are copying and trying to sell. But the plaintiff has no patent for the water, and the defendants have a right to reproduce it as nearly as they can. They have a right to tell the public what they are doing and to get whatever share they can in the popularity of the water by advertising that they are trying to make the same article and think that they succeed. If they do not convey, but, on the contrary, exclude the notion that they are selling the plaintiff's goods, it is a strong proposition that when the article has a well-known name they have not the right to explain by that name what they imitate. By doing so they are not trying to get the good will of the name, but the goodPage 381will of the goods. SeeFlagg Manufacturing Co. v.Holway,178 Mass. 83,91;Chadwickv.Covell,151 Mass. 190,191. Although the application is different, the principle seems to be similar to the rule that when a patent has expired descriptive words or even an arbitrary or personal name by which it has become known may be used if sufficient precautions are taken to prevent the public from being deceived. SeeSingerManufacturing Co. v.June Manufacturing Co.,163 U.S. 169.
The plaintiff says that no one can succeed in imitating a natural water. But all are free to try. In the absence of some fraud injurious to the plaintiff, it would be going far under any circumstances to allow her to prevent advertising "Artificial Hunyadi." But it is enough to say that under the decision inSaxlehnerv.Eisner Mendelson Co.,179 U.S. 19,36, the defendants may do so in this case. In that decision it was said that `Hunyadi,' as applied to similar water, had been public property in Hungary, and therefore had become so here, and that a later change there would not work a corresponding change in the United States. `The right to individual appropriation once lost is gone forever.' See alsoFrench Republicv.Saratoga VichyCo.,191 U.S. 427,437. At the very least the family name has become the name for any natural water of a certain type coming from a more or less extensive district, if not from anywhere in Hungary. It does not belong to the plaintiff alone in this country, even if she is the only one now sending the water here. But if there is any well-founded doubt as to the right to use a personal trade name with proper guards against deception to signify what one is imitating where one has the right to imitate, there can be none that one is at liberty to refer to a geographical expression to signify the source of one's model. `Hunyadi' at best is now only a geographical expression in effect.Decree affirmed.Page 382