Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 F. 871

Kuyper v. Witteman

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided January 12, 1885.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1885-01-12

<p>TMADE-MaTUC— ÍnEEINGEMENT— PllINTTNG AND SELLING IMITATION LABELS TO Turan Paeties.</p> <p>.Printing and selling labels in imitation of a trade-mark, with the purpose of enabling the parties to whom the labels are sold to palm oil' their goods upon the public as the goods of the owner of the trade-mark, is a violation of the rights of such owner.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The complainants, upon the facts shown in the bill of connplaint, have a good title to their trade mark, and a case for- its protection, irrespective of their statutory rights under the registration in the patent office. As the necessary diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, they are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. Upon the allegations of the bill the defendants are actively engaged in assisting third persons to .use the complainants’ trade-mark in violation of their rights. The mere act of printing and selling labels in imitation of the complainants’ might be innocent, and, without evidence of an illicit purpose, would not be a violation of the complainants’ rights. It is otherwise, however, when this is done with the obvious purpose of enabling others, by the use of the labels, to palm off their goods upon the public as the goods of the complainants.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hennessy v. Herrmann

Relies on McLean v. Fleming

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-01-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1941

1 district ·

301885189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1TMADE-MaTUC— ÍnEEINGEMENT— PllINTTNG AND SELLING IMITATION LABELS TO Turan Paeties.

¶2.Printing and selling labels in imitation of a trade-mark, with the purpose of enabling the parties to whom the labels are sold to palm oil' their goods upon the public as the goods of the owner of the trade-mark, is a violation of the rights of such owner.

¶3In Equity.

¶4Rowland Cox, for plaintiff.

¶5B. B. Foster, for defendant.

¶6Wallace, J.

¶7The demurrer in this case is without merits. The complainants, upon the facts shown in the bill of complaint, have a good title to their trade-mark, and a case for its protection irrespective of their statutory rights under the, registration in the patent-office. As the necessary diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, they are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.

¶8Opon the allegations of the bill the defendants are actively engaged in assisting third persons to use the complainants’ trade-mark in violation of their fights. The mere act of printing and selling labels in imitation of the complainants’ might be innocent, and, without evi*872dence of an illicit purpose, would not be a violation of the complainants’ rights. It is otherwise, however, when this is done with the obvious purpose of enabling others by the use of the labels to palm off their goods upon the public as the goods of the complainants.

¶9The demurrer is overruled, with costs. Defendants may answer upon payment of costs.

/23/f1d/871 · .json · Public domain