Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/46

20 20 HARVARD LAiv Review: subject to the restrictiorip and it was so made if the goods were paid for at or after notice of the restriction." There is a distinction between this case of a man holding a patent for two countries, and the case of one who holds patent rights for several districts within the United States; but in the latter case the restriction might well be held to follow the goods into other districts, and to reserve a right in the patentee which could be protected in equity as against purchasers with notice. * In the later case of Edison Electric Light Co. v. Goelet,^ U. S. Circuit Court, S. D. New York, the question of notice was re- garded as important on the question whether the vendor of pat- ented articles for one district could be restrained from selling them in the district assigned to another dealer. The court said: "There is no doubt that the defendants were advised in a general way that the complainants claimed the sole right to sell the Edi- son lamps in the city of New York, but there is no reason for discrediting their statement that as to these particular lamps they had no notice or knowledge of the restriction placed upon them by those who sold them." In the Cotton Tie Case,^ patented articles were sold with the condition that they should be used only once, and it was insisted by counsel in the brief for the defendants^ that, assuming this re- striction to be legally effective between the complainants and the first purchasers, it was not such a restriction as ran with the articles and could operate as to subsequent purchasers. The court, however, did not allude to this argument, but based its decision on the ground that, the ties having been purposely destroyed in the using, the defendants in putting them together were in fact making new ties and were guilty of infringement. Mr. Walker in the new edition of his book on Patents does not discuss the question, but he seems to take it for granted that notice would have an effect upon the rights of purchasers. ^ He says: "An agreement between grantors not to sell or use the patented article in the territory of each other is not binding upon purchasers from either of the grantees unless they buy with notice of the restriction." 1 65 Fed. Rep. 615. 2 American Cotton Tie Supply Co. v. Simons^ 106 U. S. ; 14 Brodex Pat. Cas. 159. 8 Walker on Patents, 3d ed., § 288.