Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

128 U.S. 525

9 S. Ct. 145

Docket No. 76.

Ryder v. Holt

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 14, 1888.

Decided December 10, 1888.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1888-12-10

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ' SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW XORK.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</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 Farmers' Friend Manufacturing Co. v. Challenge Corn-Planter Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 8–0 · Decided 1888-12-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1974 · most notably United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. (1918), Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company (1911)

11 federal appellate · 7 district ·

801888189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

¶1APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ' SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW XORK.

¶2Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction over suits for the violation of a trade-mark if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same State, and the bill fails to allege that the trade-mark in controversy was used on goods intended to be transported to a foreign country.

¶3The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

¶4Mr. Arthur v. Briesen for appellant.

¶5Mr. Rowlcmd Gox for appellee.

¶6Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8It was stipulated in the Circuit Court that this cause should abide the event of Menendez v. Holt, ante, 514, just decided, and the <;same decree in favor of complainants was, therefore, rendered in this as in that case. But it is now assigned for error that, as defendant and' complainants below were citizens of the same State, and the bill did not allege that the trade-mark' in controversy was “ used on goods intended to be transported to a foreign country,” Act of March 3, 1881, c. 138, § 11,. 21 Stat. 502, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, and the decree must be reversed for that reason. The objection is well taken, and the decree is accordingly ' '

¶9Reversed.

/128/us/525 · .json · Public domain