Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/552

 Monkey or Man.

513

MONKEY OR MAN. ENOCH MORGAN'S SONS' CO. v. TKOXELL, 89 New York, 292. By Irving Browne. _A trademark on sapolio, representing a man's face reflected in a tin pan, is not infringed by a representation of a monkey holding and looking in a similar object.] HE legal rule of trade unfair .*Is " Let the purchaser beware;" But equity in milder school Adjudicates a juster rule, To guard the unobservant buyer Against imposture of the liar Who forges trademark of his neighbor And reaps the gains of honest labor. The resemblance need not be exact; It is sufficient if in fact It leads unto the false surmise, In purchasing of merchandise, That one is buying goods of Doe When they are really goods of Roe.

An Indian's head, with ring in ear, Too closely like a nigger's shows, Though on the latter there appear Dependent rings in ear and nose.1 But he 's a stupid man who can't A lion from a unicorn 2 Or lion from an elephant3 Distinguish by the tusk and horn. Saint George a-spearing of the Dragon May be detected at a glance From Amazon without a rag on, A-sticking scorpion with a lance.4 1 3 8 4

Leidersdorf v. Flint, 50 Wis. 401 Darling v. Barsalow, Can. Q. B., 4 Can. L. News, 37. Henderson v. Jorp, Lloyd's Trademarks, 54. Myers v. Weller. 38 Fed. Rep. 607.