Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/318

292 292 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. upon the ground of its descriptiveness. But this rule against geo- graphical trade names has so many exceptions as almost to have reached the vanishing point. For example, where the plaintiff controls the product of an article which is called by the name of the place where it is produced, his use of the geographical name will be protected ; while as against a person using a geographical^ name upon goods actually made elsewhere, protection will be given to one who can truthfully use the geographical trade name, whether he is the only person who can truthfully use it or not.^ In N. Y. Cement Co. v. Coplay Qo.f the plaintiff made cement at Rosendale, and cement bearing that name was understood by the public to be made at Rosendale. It did not appear that there were not many makers of cement at Rosendale. Defendant made cement in another State and sold it as *' Rosendale " cement. Held, no relief unless it could be shown that the plaintiff had an exclusive owner- ship or property in the name Rosendale. Per Mr. Justice Bradley: " Would not the allowance of such an action be carrying the doc- trine of liability for unfair competition too far? . . . It seems to us that this would open a Pandora's box of vexatious litigation. . . . Unless there is an invasion of some trade mark or trade name, or peculiarity of style in which some person has a right of property, the only persons legally entitled to judicial redress would seem to be those who are imposed upon by such pretences." New York Cement Co. v. Coplay Cement Co. decides that, to entitle the plaintiff to protection in such cases as those now under consideration, his right to use the geographical trade name must be exclusive. In this, however, the case stands alone against the decisions of all other United States courts in which the question has arisen,* against the decisions of those State courts in which the question has arisen, and against the decisions of United States courts in analogous cases. It is opposed also to the evident lean- ing of a Circuit Court of Appeals,^ and in Carlsbad v. Tibbetts^ the court indulges in a pointed criticism of the case. 1 Carlsbad v. W. T. Thackaray & Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 18 ; La Republique Fran9aise V. Schultz, 57 Fed. Rep. 37. 2 Newman v. Alvord, 51 N. Y. 189; Lea v. Wolff, 13 Abb. Pr. N. s.389; Blackwell V. Dibrell, 3 Hughes, 151 ; Braham v. Beachim, 7 Ch. D. 548; Association v. Piza, 24 Fed. Rep. 125 ; Southern White Lead Co. v. Gary, 25 Fed. Rep. 125; Southern White Lead Co. v. Coit, 39 Fed. Rep. 492. Contra, N. Y. Cement Co. v. Coplay Cement Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 277. 3 44 Fed. Rep. 277. ^ Scheur v, Muller, 51 Fed. Rep. 852.
 * See Note 2, above. ^ 74 Fed. Rep. 225.