the t\\'o secWms of the Revised Statutes relating thereto, upon trie general grounds that the ·infringementwas willful, and counterfeited the appearance of the complainant's form, and was accompanied with conduct which indicated a willful and malicious determination to injure the complainant. . A decree in the Ufford suit in the district of Massachusetts, in which the Knapps were the real defendants, was entered February 23, 1888. They continued to manufacture in this district until March 30, 1888, when they were enjoined by decree of thie court. They then commenced to sell the forms B, C, and baby drapers, which were not in the Massachusetts case, and continued such sale until January, 1889, although the Domestic Sewing-Machine Company, at the sui t of the plaintiff, in which suit the Knapps were the real defendants, was enjoined, on August 25, lS88, in Massachusetts, against selling Band C. The accounting in the equity suit was until February 25, 1889. The defendants pertinaciously pushed their goods upon the customers of the complainants, and endeavored to deprive them of their former trade, but I do not consider that the statute in regard to increased damages intended to punish this pushing, forceful method of business, and I do not find that, with the exception of the interval between February 23, 1888, and March 30,1888, and between August 25, 1888, and January, 1889, the infringenient was a willful or wanton violation of the complainants' exclusive rights. During that time they were acting willfully, and the damages should be increased 011 that account $260.
et al. v.
Court. IV: D. ,l:fic1d[jrm, 8. D
August 20, 1889.)
Complainants published and copyrighted a book pf engravings illustrating certain unpatented articles manufactured by them. Defendant manufactured similar articles from designs taken from complainants' illustrations, and published a pook of engravings illllstratil1!\" its manufactures, in which several pictures were very like t!lose in complainants' book. Held not an infringe· ment of complaiuants' copyright. . '
Complainants' book of engravings was published with a price-list of the articles described in it as an ad \'ertisement of those articles. Held, that it was a matter of so much doubt whether the engravings were intrinsically valuable as works of art that a preliminary injunction should be denied.
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. Ftedm'ick T. Sibley, (Jame8 H. Brew8ter, of counsel,) for complainants. Taygart, Wokott &- Gnn8on, for defendant. SEVERENS, J. The complainants, who are manufacturers of church furniture at New York, prepared and published a book of engravings,
LAMB tl. GRAND RAPIDS SCHOOL FURNITURE CO.
illustrating their goods, and containing also a price-list thereof. This book they procured to be copyrighted. The defendant is a manufacturer O)f school and church furniture at Grand Rapids, and they also have published a book containing illustrations of their goods, with price-list, and several of those illustrations bear striking resemblance to those of the -complainants. In fact, the defendant manufactures goods from designs taken from complainants' illustrations, and they say (what for the present purpose must be admitte.d) that their illustrations are in truth of their own goods, so that the similitude of the illustrations results from the fact that the goods are alike. The manufactures of the complainants are not patented. The defendants may lawfully manufacture just such goods. Can they not publish correct illustrations of them as adjuncts -of their sale? Ought they to be restrained from doing this because the complainants, having done the same thing, have copyrighted illustrations which, while representing their own goods, represent those of the defendant also? - It is clear that the books of both parties are published and used solely as means for advertisement. To say that the defendant has not the right to publish correct illustrations of its goods must practically result in creating a monopoly, in goods modeled on those designs, in the complainants, and thus give all the benefits of a patent upon "unpatented and unpatentable articles. Sales of merchandise are made largely by samples, and when the articles are bulky, as in case offurniture, illustrations are the only representations that can be made to the eye of the public at large; and it is altogether likely that to withdraw the righno make them from one of the parties would put him out of the field of competition. It does not appear to me that such results can be accomplished in ttis way. It is true, there is an appearance of pJ:ofiting at another's expense, and reaping what another has sown, but I can see no legal ground on which this can be prevented. The legislation, with its limitations, which public policy has approved, does not extend so broadly as to give the complainants a monopoly in the harvest in such a case. But it is urged that it is alleged and claimed by the complainants that their illustrations are intrinsically valuable, as works of art. I am convinced, however, that they were not published as such, but simply for trade purposes in aid of their sales, and I doubt (though I do not decide) whether they can be regarded in any other light. If they could be established to be works of art, having value independent of their use as advertisements, a very different question would be presented. This subject may be deferred until the hearing of the cause. I have too much doubt about the fact to warrant the granting a preliminary injunction, and the motion therefore is denied.
FEDERAL ItE1'ORTER,voL 39. THE ALLIANCA. THE NELUE V. ROKES.
v. UNITED STATES & BRAZIl, MAIL S. S.
(District Court, S. Ii,
June 17, 1889.)
COLT,ISION-STEAM AND SAII,-ERROR TN EXTREMIS.
A collision occurred at night, in the Swash channeL a little below the Romer beacon, between the steamer A., outward bound, and the schooner R., inward bound. sailing wing and wing, the weather being sOnlewhat thick, and the courses of the two vessels crossinA' by an angle of half a point. As the vessels neared each other, the schooner ported and changed her course from 6 to 7 points. Upon conflicting evidence as to the lights seen, on which bow they bore, and the time of porting by the schooner, held, that the sch09ner at the time of porting was a little on the steamer's starboard bow, having the latte(s green light only in view, and at least a quarter of a. mile distant: that she rlui from 500 to 800 feet, at least, on her change of course, making a direct offing of at least 250 feet towards the line of the steamer's course; that this change brought about the collision, which would not otherwise have happened, the steamer having previously properly starboarded sufficient to dear the R. by a safe margin; that the R.'s change of course was not justified as an error in eXI1'em/s, because made at too great a distance from the steamer, and not brought about by any fault of tile iatter, and also as unreasonably made in the wrong direction. Held, also, that, as the steamer was running one-half speed, about seven knots, and the lights visible one-third or onehalf. mile distant, she properly starbo"arded in time to avoid the schooner, and was free from fault; and that seven knots was a" moderate speed" under such circumstances.
Libel for damages through a collision.
Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for libelant. Charles H. Tweed and Robert D. Benedict, for respondent.
BROWN, J. At a little past 7 o'clock in the evening of January 25, 1888, the schooner Kellie V. Rokes, loaded with a cargo of guano, while sailing up the Swash channel, came in collision with the steam-ship Allianca, outward bound, at a point probably not much over half a mile below the Romer beacon. The wind was moderate from the soath-east. The schooner, until shortly hefore the collision, was sailing N. W. by N., wing and wing, her main-boom being to port, and the fore-boom and spanker to starboard. When the steamer entered the Swash channel from 1 Z to 2 miles above, a snow squall prevented seeing any distance in that vicinity,· though it was clear below. The bell buoy at the entrance could not be seen. After going under a slow bell, as the weather became a little clearer, the stpamer proceeded at half speed, equal to about seven knots, steering S. E. S. The witnesses for the schooner testify that they saw the steamer's red light, either ahead, or a little on their port bow, from two to three miles distant, next both colored lights, and then her green light only, all on their port bow; that when the steamerwas somewhat near, variously estimated at from 200 to 400 yards, a lantern was shown and swung over the port side of the schooner; that