Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 F. 281

Luyties v. Hollender

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided August 9, 1884.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1884-08-09

<p>Trade-Marks—State Laws.</p> <p>The rights and remedies concerning trade-marks generally depend upon tho laws of the states, common or statutory, and not upon the laws of the United Slates.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Tlie registration under the statute only confers a right to it in foreign commerce, and a claim for infringement, or to be protected against infringement, cannot arise under tlie constitution or laws of the United States unless the infringément is upon the right to use it in foreign commerce, which can only be by using the trade-mark without right in such commerce. The jurisdiction is not conferred at all by express words of the statute, but only by providing a mode of acquiring a right, a suit for the invasion of which would arise under the laws of the United States, within the act of 1875. The clause quoted from is restrictive of that jurisdiction. Tlie defendants do not infringe upon any right resting- upon the laws of the United States unless they use the trade-mark in foreign commerce, and jurisdiction of a suit for such infringement is not left in the courts of the United Stales unless such infringement consists in using the trade-mark by the defendants upon goods intended to be transported to a foreign country.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hennessy v. Braunschweiger & Co.

Relies on United States v. Steffens · Brine v. Insurance Co. · Connecticut Mut Life Ins Co v. Cushman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-08-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1940

1 federal appellate ·

201884189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Trade-Marks—State Laws.

¶2The rights and remedies concerning trade-marks generally depend upon tho laws of the states, common or statutory, and not upon the laws of the United Slates.

¶3In Equity.

¶4Samuel T. Smith, for orators.

¶5Louis C. Raegener, for defendants.

¶6Wheeler, J.

¶7Eights and remedies pertaining to trade-marks generally depend upon the laws of the state, common and statutory, and not upon the laws of the United States. Trade-mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82. The laws of the United States now in force, under which this trade-mark was registered, relate only to trade-marks specially used in commerce with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Act of March 3, 1881, (21 St. at Large, c. 137, § 1.) They are particularly restricted so as not to give cognizance to any court of the United States in an action or suit between citizens of the same state, unless the trade-mark in controversy is used on goods intended to be transported to a foreign country, or in lawful commercial intercourse with an Indian tribe. Id. § 11. Tho goods on which the trademark in question is used are not intended to be transported to any foreign country, nor for any Indian tribe, but are mineral waters sold for consumption in the city of New York; and the parties are all citizens of the state of New York.

¶8As this case is now presented, the orators are not entitled to maintain it in this court, and this motion for a preliminary injunction must he denied.

/21/f1d/281 · .json · Public domain