Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/58

 44 FEDERAL REPORTER. �establishment itself where the manufacture is carried on, and be- comes attached to the manufaetured article only as the product of that particular establishment, a sale of the establishment will carry with it to the purchaser the exclusive right to use the name it had previously acquired, in connection with his own manufacture at the same place of a similar article, by operation of law. For that prop- osition, the case of the Congress Spring, Cox's American Trade-mark Cases, 599, is a direct authority. The court of appeal, per Folger, J., (630,) said: �" The plaintiff purchased of the former proprietors the spring. ihey took the whole property in it. They thus obtained that which was the prime value of it, the exclusive right to preserve its waters in bottlea, as an article of merchandise, and the exclusive right to sell it when bottled. Thus they acquired the business of their predecessors, for the plaintiff, owning the spring, no one else could carry on the business. And, under the rules above stated, they acquired by assignraent, or operation of law, the right to the trade-mark, before that time in use, to designate the article upon which this business was carried on." ' ■ �It is true, as observed by counsel in argument, that in that case the article: of merchandise was a natural, and noi, as in the present, an artificial, production. That circumstance was observed npon, in the argument of that case, as a reason for refusing the protection claimed foir the trade-mark by the purchaser. The court said in reply,(p.625:) �" It is true that, in most of the cases wMoh have been the occasion of the rules laid down on this subject, the article in question has been artificial. But it will be difflcult to show a reason for any of these rules which does not apply to the proprietorship of an unique product of nature, as well as to that of an unique product of art." �The following cases are cited without comment as sustaining the same proposition: G. & H. Manufg Co. v. Hall, 61 N. Y. 229; Carmichael V. Lattimer, 11 E. I. 407; and Booth v. Jwrrett, 52 How. Pr. 169. �The cases cited and relied upon by counsel for complainant do not seem to us to affect the question in the view which we have taken of the facts. The only one upon which we think it important to submit a comment is that of Wotherspoon v. Gv/rrie, L. R. 5 Eng. & Ir. Ap. 521, and that, only because it seems to be urged as inoon- sistent with the view we have been compelled to adopt. In that case the controversy turned upon the exclusive right to the word "Glen- field," as applied to starch originally made at a village of that name, the manufacture of which was subsequently removed to another ��� �