Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/278

258 258 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Seventh Circuit. In the Court below, the respondents had been restrained from using the words " Dr. Bull's Cough Syrup " and other forms of expression containing these words upon any label resembling the labels of the complainant, but not from using the words on labels not resembling the complainant's. It was held in the Court of Appeals that they should be prohibited from using the words on any style of label. In Baker v. Sanders,^ where the plaintiff was the original manu- facturer of Baker's chocolate and the defendant was the agent for one W. H. Baker of Virginia, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the second circuit, formulated a very carefully worded injunction against using in connection with the business of making or selling chocolate the word "Baker" with or without initials, " so as to indicate that the chocolate is a variety of 'Baker's Chocolate'; but the defendant may indicate in appro- priate language that the chocolate is made, prepared or sold for or by W. H. Baker of Winchester, Virginia." For special reasons the Court in that case gave the defendant an option, instead of changing his labels, to affix to each package the statement " W. H. Baker is distinct from the old chocolate manu- factory of Walter Baker & Co." In Baker v. Baker,^ in the same circuit, Judge Shipman granted an injunction in the first form given by the Court of Appeals as above without any alternative. In Allegretti v. Keller,^ the second form was adopted on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Owing to the French practice of minutely and completely de- fining the rights and obligations of the parties, some of their decrees are most interesting examples of what justice and fair dealing require in cases of this character. In Roederer v. Roederer,* the plaintiffs Th6ophile Roederer & Co., of Rheims, were makers of a well-known brand of cham- pagne having a valuable reputation, and defendants organized a partnership under the name of Louis Roederer & Co., to sell cham- pagne, and advertised themselves widely. Louis Roederer had never had anything to do with the manufacture of champagne and was a stranger in the city, so that there was no doubt of fraudulent intention. Nevertheless, as Louis Roederer was a real member of » 80 Fed. Rep. 889. a 87 Fed. Rep. 209. « 85 Fed. Rep. 643.
 * Dalloz, Recueil Periodique, 1865, pt. 2, page 87 {Brown Trademarks, sec. 438).