Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/516

 480

The Green Bag

the use of their trademark in Spain, resumed the manufacture of their cor dial under the name of Peres Chartreux, meanwhile endeavoring to protect their rights to the original name outside of France. Not long ago the question was

order, to prevent infringement of trade mark rights. In Baglin v. Cusenier Co.. decided May 29, the United States Supreme Court took substantially the same position as the English courts. Mr. Justice Hughes said: —

litigated in English courts, as to whether

“Upon the application of the Pro

the French liquidator could claim an exclusive right to the trade name, and Lord Macnaghten in the House of Lords,

cureur of the Republic the French court

inLecouturier v. Rey (1910, A. C. p. 265),

non-authorized congregation of the Char

thus decided: — "To me it seems perfectly plain that it

treux, and it was of these properties that a liquidator was appointed. It does not

must be beyond the power of any foreign court or any foreign legislature to pre

appear that the court assumed jurisdiction of the trade marks registered on behalf of the monks in other countries.

vent the monks from availing themselves in England of the beneﬁt of the reputa tion which the liqueurs of their manu facture have acquired here or to extend or communicate the beneﬁt of that reputation to any rival or competitor in the English market. But it is certainly satisfactory to learn from the evidence of experts in French law that the law of associations is a penal law — a law of

police and order —- and is not considered to have any extra-territorial effect. It is also satisfactory to ﬁnd that these legal experts conﬁrm the conclusion which any lawyer would draw from a perusal of the French judgments in evi

dence in this case, that the sale by the liquidator of the property bought by the appellant company has not carried with it the English trademarks or established the claim of the appellant company to represent their manufacture as the manu facture of the monks of La Grande Chart reuse, which most certainly it is not.”

This question also came up in this

proceeded to the judicial liquidation of the properties in France held by the

On the contrary, it appears to have been

held that the question of the ownership of such trade marks was not involved in its determination. . . . The monks' secret was not the subject of seizure

by the liquidator and did not pass to him. It is not pretended that he or his vendee have manufactured the liqueur at Fourvoirie under a formula or recipe derived from the monks, but it is main tained that a formula believed to be es sentially similar has been arrived at by experimentation, in accordance with which the liquidator and the French Com

pany have been making their liqueur. We are not concerned with their author ity under the French law to conduct this business, but it is not the business to

which the trademarks in this country re late.

That business is being conducted

according to the ancient process by the monks themselves. The French law can not be conceived to have any extra

territorial effect to detach the trade marks in this country from the product

country, an injunction against the New York agent of the French liquidator

of the

having been sought by the Carthusian

manufacturing."

monks, which

they

are

still