Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/53

 PEPPEB V. LABROT. 39 �distillers. The complainant having, upon his Own petition, been declared a bankrupt, iiled the required schedule of his assets and lia- bilities, in which he described the tract of land inherited from his brother as including the "Old Osear Pepper Distillery ;" and as such it was known at the time the title became vested in the defendants. �The clear resuit of the whole evidence seeins, in our opinion, to be that the complainant adopted the name of "Old Oscar Pepper Distil- lery" as the name of his distillery, in order that the whisky manu- factured by him there might have the reputation and whatever other advantages were to resuit from that association. �That distillery having now beoome the property of the defendants by purchase from the complainants, can they be denied the right of using the name by which it was previously known in the prosecution of the business of operating it, and of describing the whisky made by them as its product ? �Can the complainant be permitted to use the brand or mark for- merly employed by him, to represent whisky made by him elsewhere as the actual product of this distillery ? �Both these questions, in our opinion, must be answered in the neg- ative. �The most-recent statement of the law applicable to this subject by the supreme court of the United States is found in the case of The Amoskeag Manufg Co. v. Trainer ,101 U. S. 51. In that case Mr. Justice Pield said : �" The general doctrines of fche law as to trade-marks, the symbols or signs which may be used to designais products of a particular manufacture, and the protection which the courts will aflford to those who originally appropriated them, are net controverted. Every one is at liberty to afBx to a product of his own manufacture any symbol or device not previously appropriated, which will distinguish it from articles of the same general nature manufactured' or sold by others, and thus secure to himself the beneflt of increased sales by reason of any peculiar excellence he may have given to it. ' The symbol or device thus becomes a sign to the public of the origin of the goods to which it is attached, and an assurance that they are the genuine article of the original producer. In this way it often proves to be of great value to the manufac- turer in preventing the substitution and sale of an inferior and different arti- cle for his products. It becomes his trade-mark, and the courts will protect him in its exclusive use, either by the imposition of damages for its wrong- ful appropriation, or by restraining others from applying it totheir goods, and compelling them to account for profits made on a sale of goods marked with it. The limitations upon the use of devices as trade-marks are well defined. The object of the trade-mark isto indicate, either hy its own meaning or by association, the origin or ownership of the article to which it is applied. If it did not, it would serve no useful purpose either to the manufacturer or to ��� �