Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/43

 SAvrraB V, HOBN. 35 �Leather Co. 11 Jur. (N. S.) 513, upon appeal to the house of lords the case was finally disposed of upon the ground that the alleged trade-mark was simply an advertisement of the quality of the goods, and that it was in both cases printed in very large type, in a circle more than six inches in diameter, easily read and hardly to be mistaken one for the other; and Lord Cranworth, in dismissing the case, says : "I men- tion this because if, instead of occupying this large space, the whole had been engraved on a stamp of the size of a shilling, 80 as not to be capable of being read without close exam- ination, the case would have been different." �In the case of Dixon Orucible Co. v. Guggenheim, decided by Judge Paxson in 1870, (2 Brewster, 321,) although there was no teehnical trade-mark, to the exclusive right of whieh the plaintiffs were entitled, the fact that the defendant's pack- ages of stove polish were in size, shape and labels obviously a fraudulent imitation of the complainant's, induced the court to grant relief; although it was shown that the wholesale deal- ers generally understood the difference, and only the consumera were likely to be deceived. �And in that case, although reference is made to a Penn- sylvania statute intending to restrain the counterfeiting of private stamps and labels, the reasons given by the learned judge for his decision are based entirely upon general princi- ples adduced from the authorities cited by him. �The case of Enoch Morgan's Sons e Co. v. Schwakhoffer, in the supreme court of the city of New York, was decided upon the same prineiple. The plaintiffs adopted the name of "Sapolio" as a trade-mark for their goods, and it became known bythat name, and by the peculiar and distinctive style of packages, labels and wrappers in which it was put up. The defendant began manufacturing the same kind of goods and adopted the name "Sophia" as his trade-mark, and adopted the same style of package, with labels and wrappers which, through a. careful inspection, disclosed were different in almost every particular, and had the defendant's own name on them, yet the court, finding that the defendant's goods were in appearance so close an imitation of the plain- ��� �