well foundediandshbuld' not be so held','asamatter'oflaw, upon the proofs' in this case. " ;",: As to the alleged infrtngemeIft 'of complainant's trade-mark, I can onls: say that defendant's oval plare"wheninspected and examined, is not an imitation of theoomplainant's trade-mark. Complainant has not, 'according to the showing of iU! bill ,and the proofs, acquired any specialdgbt to the oval brass plate affixed upon the side of the sewingmacb.ine!liearestthe operator; but that oval brass plate must bear certain and letterings which make the complll:inant's trade-mark, and which I do not find in tbeoval brass plate used by the defendant. The Qlaim iBthatcomplainant originated this trade-mark, and began the use of it, eady in 1871, which, according to the proof, was while many of the patents owned by oomplainant·and its predecessors remainded in force; and, :while I do not deem it necessary to pass upon the question here, I haveseriOliiS doubts whetb.er a manufacturer making a machine under a patent ,or patents can, while so doing,; apply a trade-mark which shall continue:hisexclusive property after the expiration of the patenU! which gave character to the mechanism; but Ifeel very sure thatif,in so applying, a the plate or escutcheon on which it is impressed or engraved a part of the ornamentation ofthe machine, the plate itself maybe used 'by others, as an ornament of the machine, after the expiration of the patent, even if the later manufacturer has no right to use the symbols of the trade-mark. I do not find, from the proof, that ha.s been guilty ofinfringin/l: the complainant's trademark., 'The bill is therefore dismissed, 10T want of equity, at complainant'llcoSlS.
SAME 11. LARSEN.
Cowrt, N. D.ltUncriB. December 23, 1889.)
, '" '
TJu.DB-YuKs-INl"BmGIlMBNT.,' '. ,
A manufacturerbas the to buy old machines of anotherma'ke, and to repair, repaint, and sell them again, without removing the trade-mark put on them by their
InEquity. Bills for infringement of trade-mark. , Offield&;, Towle and L. Maxwell, for eomplainant. ,J.G. EllioU, for defendants. BWDGET'J'j J. These two cases have bElen tried with the preceding llgainst the June Mlinuf!1cturingCompany ,ante" 208, and present the SIlme issues; and the, !3&metestimony 1:18.$, by stipulation, been con· sidered. The Jactsa,re;l!o entirely similar thtlt 1 do not deem it necessary to go into any anqlysis or statemellt of them. In the last-named
! CHITTEI'iDEN t1.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Connecticut. Jalluary,8,1890.)
1. PA'1'icNT$:rOK ,INVENTxON-PATENT.A.BIL1TY.;."..ANTtCIPATION.
The improvement described in the seventh claim of letters patent No. 261,470! Issned·December 27,1881. to James R.Russell. conllisting, in a hat.feltingmoohme, of a vertically adj)Jstable roller combined with a foot an adjuiltable butter, consiiltil\g'of an adjttlltable screw under the, table of the machihe1,with a rubber end; raised or lowered 'by a hand wheel thereen so as to regulate tne distance the foot, ,lever. can ascen.d, the,reby regu,lat.in g th.e adj.ustable r.o11er, isn.0,t patentable, ,., as machines had been previously with two adjustable /ltops, and an English patent had been granted to William Grimshaw, in for a haHelti:!ig moohinewhich, though having noro11ers, had a concave, adjustable surface, adjusted:by a ., treadle,and adjustable stop, as in the Russell patent.
'2. B.um.' " , " . , Thet1J.1lt ,an<lsecond claims of lettier!! No, 844,166, issueti J.nne 22, 1886, to HallVey M.,Cllittenden for, the combinatlpp.,in a hat.feltipg machine, of a cllntral Shaft, a' w:ooden 'roller made in sections,' with grooved ends, and a metM cap with flanges 'and projeetionli taking into, groove. Ol' indentatlonB in tIte 'Wooden rolJer,