appropriation of them arises out of the circumstance that,
on account of their general or popular use, every indi-
vidual in the community has an equal right to use them,
and that right is in all cases paramount to the rights and
interests of any person."^

A generic or descriptive word cannot be made a valid
trade-mark by misspelling it (as, for example, "Kid Nee
Kure," applied to a medicine),* or by printing it in letters
from the alphabet of a foreign language. '^

It must not be inferred, however, that words in com-
mon use cancot be appropriated as trade-marks. They
certainly can be so appropriated if used in a new and
distinctive sense. If any other rule obtained, no words
could be used as trade-marks unless the person adopting
them was their original and first inventor. There is no
such legal requirement either as to words or devices.*^
"Words in common use may be adopted, if at the time of
adoption they were not used to designate the same or
similar articles of production."'

'Browne on Trade-marks (2d ed.), sec. 134.

2Canal Co. vs. Clark, 13 Wall. 311-322; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Ten-
nessee Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537-548.

^5 Daniels, J., in Newman v. Alvord, 49 Barb. 588; Cox, 404.
^Ex parte Henderson. 85 OS. Gaz. 453.
••"Ex parte Stuhmer, 86 Off. Gaz. 181.
^Osgood V. Allen, 1 Holmes, 185.
"Osgood V. Allen, supra.



§32 J WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADE-MARK. 57

While the foUowinj,^ is an extract from a judicial argu-
ment delivered by a court in a futile attempt to justify its
decree sustaininnr as a trade -mark a geographical word
to which the plaintiff had no color of exclusive right,
it is still a lucid exposition of the principle under con-
sideration: "Words and names having a known or estab-
lished signification cannot within the limits .of such
specification be exclusively appropriated to the advance-
ment of the business purposes of any particular indi-
vidual, firm or company. The inability to make such
appropriation of them arises out of the circumstance
that on account of their general or popular use every
individual in the community has an equal right to use
them, and that right is in all cases paramount to the
rights and interests of any one person, firm or company.
What alike may be claimed and used by ail cannot be
exclusively appropriated to advance the interests of any
person. Numerous cases have been before the courts in
which this limitation upon the use of words and names
as trade-marks has been maintained and established, and
no good reason can be given for questioning or impeach-
ing their conclusions. But while this limitation is en-
tirely reasonable, there can be no propriety in extending
it beyond the circumstance upon which it is founded; and
accordingly any member of the community whose inter-
ests and business may be promoted by doing so, should be
at liberty to apply even names and words in common use
to the products of his industry, in such a manner as to
indicate their origin or particular manufacture, where
such application will not intrench upon and'be in no way
included in their use by the public. By doing so, the
rights of no member of the community can be in any
manner infringed, and no public inconvenience whatever
can be occasioned by it. The public will still be left at
full liberty to use such words or terms as they were used
before; while for a special purpose a new office or pur-
pose may be imposed upon them.

"In cases of that description no greater inconvenience
or embarrassment can be found in protecting partk^s in



58 LAW OF UNFAIR TRADE. [ § 33

the enjoyment of the new use or purpose engrafted upon
a popular term than has been found in extending that
protection to the case of a word created for the occa-
sion.''^

§ 33. Illustrations of generic terms. — In the follow-
ing instances the words and marks mentioned have been
held to be invalid as trade-marks because generic; being-
geographical or descriptive. The examples are arranged
in alphabetical order for convenient reference.

"A. C. A.," cloth;- "Acid Phosphate,'' medicinal prep-
aration;^ "Allcock's Porous Plasters," medicated plas-
ters;* " Ammoniated Bone Superphosphate of Lime," fer-
tilizer;^ "Anglo-Portugo," oysters;*^ "Angostura," bit-
ters;' "American," sardines;^ "Antiquarian," book-store;^
"Apple and Honey," medicine; ^"^ "Astral," oil.^^

"Balm of Thousand Flowers," cosmetic; ^^ "Barber's
Model," razors ;^^ "Bazaar, "patterns for clothing; ^^ "Bet-
ter Than Mother's," mince meat;^-^ "Black Package,"
tea;^^ "Book, "the device of a book, used by a publisher; ^^
"Borax," soap ;i^ "Braided Fixed Stars," cigar lights. ^'-^

"Cachemire Milano," fabric;-*^ "California Syrup of



^Newman v. Alvord, 49 Barb. 588.
^Amoskeag- Mfg. Co. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51.
3Rumford Chem. Works v. Muth, 35 Fed. Rep. 524.
<Re Brandreth, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 618.
^Alleg-hany Fertilizer Co. v. Woodside, 1 Hughes, 115.
"Re Saunion & Co., Seb. 625; Cox, Manual, 625.
^Siegert v. Findlater, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 801; Siegert v. Abbott (2),
79 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 243.

^Re American Sardine Co., 3 Off. Gaz. 495.
"Choynski v. Cohen, 39 Cal. 501.
'«Ex parte G. F. Heublein & Bro., 87 Off. Gaz. 179.
1' Pratt's Mfg. Co. v. Astral Refining Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 492-494.
i^Fetridge v. Wells, Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 180.
13 Ex parte Krusius Bros., 82 Off. Gaz. 1687.
'*McCall V. Theal, 28 Grant (Up. Can.) Ch. 43.
'•5 Ex parte Ervin A. Rice Co.. 83 Off. Gaz. 1207.
i«Fischer v. Blank, 138 N. Y. 244.

'"Merriam v. Famous Shoe & Clothing Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 411.
'^'Dreydoppel v. Young, 14 Phila. 226.
J«Re Palmer, L. R. 24 Ch. D. 504.
20 Re Warburg, 13 Off. Gaz. 44.



§33] WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADE-MARK. 59

Pigs," laxative medicine;^ "Castoria," medicine T'^ "Cele-
brated Stomach Bitters," bitters; =* "Cellular," cloth of
cellular construction;^ "Cherry Pectoral," medicine;'^
"Chill Stop," medicine;^ "Chlorodjme," medicinal com-
pound;^ "Club House," gin;'* "Continental," sought to
be protected from infringement as the name of a fire
insurance corporation;'' "Cough Remedy," cough medi-
cine;^" "Crack Proof," rubber;^^ "Cramp Cure."
medicine; ^'^ "Cresylic," ointment; ^-^ "Croup Tincture,'
medicine; ^^ "Crystallized Egg," for a preparation of
eggmeat;^^ "Cylinder," glass products. ^"^

"Desiccated," codfish ;i^ " Druggists' Sundries," cigars;^^
"Dry Monopole," champagne ;^'-' "Durham," tobacco. ^^

"Egg," macaroni ;2i "Elgin," watches;"^- "Emoill-

'California Fig SjTup Co. v. Putnam, 66 Fed. Rep. 50; California
Fig Syrup Co. v. Stearns, 67 Fed. Rep. 1008; S. c. on appeal, 73
Fed. Rep. 812; Re California Fig Syrup Co., L. R. 40 Ch. D. 620.
Contra, see California Fig Syrup Co. v. Improved Fig Syrup Co., 51
Fed. Rep. 296; Improved Fig Syrup Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co.,
54 Fed. Rep. 175; California Fig Syrup Co. v. Worden, 86 Fed. Rep.
212; s. c, 95 Fed. Rep. 132.

^Centaur Co. v, Robinson, 91 Fed. Rep. 889; Centaur Co. v. Neathery,
91 Fed. Rep. 891; Centaur Co. v. Hughes Bros. Mfg.Co.,91 Fed.Rep.901.

^Hostetter v. Adams, 20 Blatchf. 326.

< Cellular Clothing Co. v. Maxton, L. R. (1899) A. C. 326.

^Ayer v. Rushton, 7 Daly, 9.

« Ex parte Hance Bros. & White, 87 Off. Gaz. 698.

'Browne v. Freeman (1), 12 W. R. 305; Seb. 230; Cox, Manual,
230; Browne V. Freeman (2), Seb. 424; Cox, Manual, 424.

** Cor win v. Daly, 7 Bos. 222.

» Continental Ins. Co. v. Continental Fire Ass'n, 96 Fed. Rep. 846.

'OGilman v. Hunnewell, 122 Mass. 139.

"Re Goodyear Rubber Co., 11 Off. Gaz. 1062.

12L. H. Harris Drug Co. v. Stucky, 46 Fed. Rep. 624.

I'^Carbolic Soap Co. v. Thompson, 25 Fed. Rep. 625.

"Re Roach, 10 Off. Gaz. 333.

'•'Lamont v. Leedy, 88 Fed. Rep. 72.

"'Stokes V. Landgraff, 17 Barb. 608; Cox, Am, Tr. Cas. 137.

''Townv. Stetson,4Abb.Pr.N.S.218;3Daly,53;Cox,Am.Tr.Cas.514.

I'^Ex parte Cohn (2), 16 Off. Gaz. 680.

>■•' Richards v. Butcher. L. R. (1891) 2 Ch. 522.

■-"Blackwell v. Wright, 73 N. C. 310.

21 Re Dole Bros., 12 Off. Gaz. 939.

"Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Elgin Nat. Watch Co.. 94 Fed. Rep.
667; reversing s. C, 89 Fed. Rep. 487.



60 LAW OF UNFAIR TRADE. [§33

orum," waterproof dressing for leather;^ "Encyclopedia
Britannica," title of an encyclopedia;'-^ "Evaporated,"
food products;^ "Ever Ready," coffee mills;^ "Extract
of Nig'ht-Blooming Cereus," perfume.^

"Fairbank's Patent," scales;'' "Famous," stoves;^
"FerrophosphoratedElixirofCalisaya Bark, "medicine;^
"Fire-proof, "oil;'' "French," paints;^" "Fruit, "vinegar."

"Galen," manufactured glass ;^'- "Gibraltar," lamp
chimneys; ^^ "Glendon," iron;^* "Golden," ointment; ^^
"Gold Label," bread;i« "Gold Medal," saleratus;i^ "Good-
year Rubber Co.," as name for rubber manufacturing
house; ^^ "Granite, "enameled kitchen utensils;^'' "Grano-
lithic," artificial stone ;2'' "Granulated Dirt-Killer," soap ;2i
"Greatest value for the money," shoes ;'^"^ "Green Moun-
tain," grapes ;^^ "Guaranteed," corset ;2* "Guenther's
Best," flour ;'^-^ "Gyrator," bolting machines."^''

iRe Talbot, 8 R. P. C. 149.

^ Black V. Ehrich, 44 Fed. Rep. 793.

3 Re Alden, 15 Off. Gaz. 389.

^Ex parte Bronson Co., 87 Off. Gaz. 1782.

sphalon V. Wright, 5 Phila. 464; Cox, Manual, 232.

^F'airbanks v. Jacobus, 14 Blatch. 337.

'Ex parte Brand Stove Co., 62 Off. Gaz. 588.

»Caswell V. Davis, 58 N. Y. 223; 17 Amer. Rep. 233.

^Scottv. Standard Oil Co., 106Ala. 475; 31 L.R.A.374; 19 So.Rep. 71.
10 Ex parte Marsching- & Co., 15 Off. Gaz. 294.
"Alden v. Gross, 25 Mo. App. 123.

12 Stokes V. Landgraff, 17 Barb. 608; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 137.
I'^Ex parte Nave & McCord Merc. Co., 86 Off. Gaz. 1985.
1^ Glendon Iron Co. v. Uhler, 75 Pa. St. 467; 15 Amer Rep. 599.
1'^ Green v. Rooke, W. N. 1872, p. 49.
16 Ex parte Stuhmer, 86 Off. Gaz. 181.
1" Taylor v. Gillies, 59 N. Y. 331.

1* Goodyear 's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber
Co., 128 U. S. 598; reversing s. C, 21 Fed. Rep 276.

i''St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Piper, 33 N. Y. Supp. 443.
20Stuart & Co. v. Scottish Val de Travers Paving Co., Ct. Sess. Cas.
(4th ser.j 13, 1.
21 Ex parte Waeferling, 16 Off. Gaz. 764.
2-' Ex parte Parker, Holmes & Co., 85 Off. Gaz. 287.
2'5Hoyt v. J. T. Lovett Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 173; 17 C. C. A. 652; 31
L. R. A. 44; 39 U. S. App. 1.

2^ Symington v. Footman, 56 L. T. N. S. 696.

25 Ex parte Guenther Milling Co., 86 Off". Gaz. 1986.

2«Ex parte Wolf, 80 Off. Gaz. 1271.



§33] WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADE-MARK. 01

"Hand Grenade,' tire extinguisher; ^ "Hamburg," tea;''^
"Harvey's Sauce," condiment;^ "Headache Wafers,"
medicinal compound;^ "Health Food," cereal products
and prepared foods;-' "Health Preserving," corsets;''
"Highly Concentrated Compound Fluid Extract of
Buchu," medicine;" "Holbrook's," school ai)paratus;^
"Homoeopathic Medicines," description of articles so
called;'-^ "Hydro-Bromo Soda Mint," medicine; ^° "Hy-
gienic," underwear. ^^

' ' Imperial, " beer; ^'- ' ' Indurated Fibre, " wood-pulp prod-
ucts; ^^ "Instantaneous," tapioca prepared for speedy
cooking; ^^ "International Banking Co.," as name of bank-
ing concern;^* "Iron Bitters," bitters containing iron;^*'
"Ironstone," water pipe. ^"

"Johnson's American Anodyne," liniment;^** "Juli-
enne," soup.^''

"Kaiser," beer ;'^" "Kid Nee Kure," medicine ;'^^ "Kidney
& Liver," bitters.-

^Re Harden Fire Esting-uisher Co.'s Trade-mark, 55 L.J. CIi. 596.

2Frese v. Bachof, 14 Blatchf. 432.

3Lazenburgv. White, 41 L. J. Ch. 354.

^Gessler v. Grieb, 80 Wis. 21; 27 Am. St. Rep. 20.

•^Fuller V. Huff, 99 Fed. Rep. 439.

«Ball V. Sieg-el, 166 111. 137.

"Helmbold v. Helmbold Mfg. Co., 53 How. Pr. 453.

** Sherwood v. Andrews, 3 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 588.

^Humphrey's Spec. Homoeopathic Med. Co. v.Wenz. 14 Fed. Rep. 250.

"Ex parte Spayd, 86 Oflf. Gaz. 631.

"Jaros Hyg-ienic Underwear Co. v. Fleece Hyg-ienic Underwear
Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 622; S. c, 65 Fed. Rep. 424.

^^Beadleston & Woerz v. Cooke Brewing- Co., 20 C. C. A. 405; 74
Fed. Rep. 229.

i'"' Industrial Fibre Co. v. Amoskeag- Indurated Fibre Ware Co.,
37 Fed. Rep. 695.

i^Bennet v. McKinley, 65 Fed. Rep. 505; 13 C. C. A. 25.

'•"^Kohler v. Sanders, 122 N. Y. 65; affirming S. c, 48 Hun, 48.

i"Brown Chem. Co. v. Stearns, 37 Fed. Rep. 360; Brown Chem. Co.
V. Meyer, 139 U. S. 591; Cox, Manual, 726.

'■Re Rader, 13 Off. Gaz. 596.

i"Re Johnson, 2 Off. Gaz. 315.

lOGodillot V. Hazard, 81 N. Y. 263.

-"Luyties v. Hollender, 30 Fed. Rep. 632. Per contra, see Kaiser-
brauerei v. Baltz Brewing Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 695.

-'Ex parte Henderson, 85 Off. Gaz. 453.

"Spieker v. Lash, 102 Cal. 38; 36 Pac. Rep. 362.



62 LAW OF UNFAIR TRADE. [§33

"Lackawanna," coal;i "Lake," glass product;-' "La
Normandie," cig-ars;^ "Liebig's Extract of Meat," meat
extract made under Liebig's formula;* "Lieutenant
James' Horse Blister," ointment ;5 "Linoleum," floor-
cloth i^ "Loch Katrine," whisky.'

'^Magnolia," alloy metal ;'^ "Malted Milk," infants'
food;^ "Marshall's Celebrated," liniment;io ''Maryland
Club Rye," whisky; ^^ "Masonic," cigars; ^'^ "Matzoon,"
fermented milk;^-^ "Medicated Prunes," medicine; ^^ "Me-
tallic Clinton," paint ;i'^ "Microbe Killer," antiseptic;i«
"Moline," plows;i^ "Montserrat," lime juice. ^^

"National Sperm," candles ;!'■' "Native Guano," fertil-
izer;''^ "New Manny," harvester; -1 "New York," glass
products; 2"^ "Nourishing London," stout. ^^

1 Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311.

2 Stokes V. Landgraff, 17 Barb. 60S; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 137.
^Stachelberg v. Ponce, 128 U. S. 686.

^Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. (Ltd.) v. Hanbury, 17 L. T. N. S.
298; Anderson v. Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. (Ltd.), 45 L. T. 757;
Cartmell, 47.

•'James v. James, L. R. 13 Eq. 421; 41 L. J. Ch. 353; 26 L. T. N. S.
568; 20 W. R. 434; Seb. 388.

« Linoleum Mfg. Co. v. Nairn, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 834; 47 L. J. Ch.
430; 38 L. T. N. S. 448; 26 W. R. 463; Seb. 536.

'Bulloch, Lade & Co. v. Gray, 19 Jour. Juris. 218; Seb. 452.

* Magnolia Metal Co. 's Trade-marks, 66 L. J. Ch. N. S. 312.

"Ex parte Horlick's Food Co., 84 Off. Gaz. 1870.

10 Marshall v. Pinkham, 52 Wis. 572.

"Cahn V. Hoffman House, 28 N.Y. Supp. 388. Contra, see Cahn
V. Gottschalk, 2 N. Y. Supp. 13.

12 Ex parte Smith (3), 16 Off. Gaz. 764.

i*Dadirrian v. Yacubian, 72 Fed. Rep. 1010; Dadirrian v. Yacu-
bian (2), 90 Fed. Rep. 812.

14 Ex parte Smith (2), 16 Off. Gaz. 679.

1'^ Clinton Metallic Paint Co. v. New York Metallic Paint Co., 50
N. Y. Supp. 437.

i«Alff V. Radam, 77 Tex. 530.

I'Candee, Swan & Deere v. Deere & Co., 54 111. 439; 5 Amer. Rep.
125.

1^ Evans v. Von Laer, 32 Fed. Rep. 153.

i»Re Price's Patent Candle Co., L. R. 27 Ch. D. 681.

20Native Guano Co. v. Sewage Manure Co., 8 P. R. 125.

21 Re Graham, 2 Off. Gaz. 618.

22 Stokes V. Landgraff, 17 Barb. 608; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 137.

25 Raggett V. Findlater, L. R. 17 Eq. 29; 43 L. J. Ch. 64; 29 L. T.
N. S. 448; 22 W. R. 53; Seb. 431.



§33] WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADE-MARK.



63



"Old Bourbon," whisky;' "Old Innishowen," whisky;'^
"Old London Dock," g-in;=^ "Olive," bicycles having
olive-colored frames.^

"Paraffin," oil;"* "Parson's Purgative," pills;« "Per-
fect Face Paste," medicine;^ "Philadelphia," beer;*
"Pocahontas," coal;"' "Post Office," directory;''^ "Por-
ous," medicinal plasters; 11 "Prime Leaf," lard; ''^ "Prize
Medal, 1862," on goods sold by one awarded a medal at
the London International Exhibition of 1862;i-^ "Purity,"
oleomargarine.!*

"Red," snuff;!-^ "Richardson's Patent Union," leather
splitting machine;!^ "Rose," vanilla extract;'" "Rosen-
dale," cement;!' "Rye and Rock," liquor.'''

"Safety," explosive powder;^^ "Sanitary," filter;-'
" Sarsaparilla and Iron," tonic:"^^ "Satinine," starch and

1 Hardy v. Cutter, 3 Off. Gaz. 468.

2 Watt V. O'Hanlon, 4 P. R. 1.

yBinninger v. Wattles, 28 How. Pr. 206.

*Ex parte Olive Wheel Co., 84 Off. Gaz. 1871.

^Young V. Macrae, 9 Jur. N. S. 322.

«Re Johnson, 2 Off. Gaz. 315.

'Ex parte Rail, 85 Off. Gaz. 453.

^Eg-gers V. Hink, 63 Cal. 445.

9Coffman v. Castner, 87 Fed. Rep. 457. Contra, Atwater v. Castner,
88 Fed. Rep. 642.

w Kelly V. Byles, 40 L. T. 623.

"Re Brandreth, Seb. 626.

i-Popham V. Wilcox, 66 N. Y. 69.

I'^Batty V. Hill, 1 H. ii M. 264; 8 L. T. N. S. 791; 11 W. R. 745;
2 N. R. 265; Seb. 218.

"Ex parte Capitol City Dairy Co., 83 Off. Gaz. 295.

i-'Ex parte Pearson Tobacco Co., 85 Off. Ga2. 287.

'«Re Richardson, 3 Off. Gaz. 120.

"Clotworthy v. Schepp, 42 Fed. Rep. 62.

i^Nevv York Cement Co. v. Coplay Cement Co. (1), 44 Fed. Rep.
277; New York Cement Co. v. Coplay Cement Co. (2), 45 Fed. Rep.
212.

19 Van Beil v. Prescott, 82 N. Y. 630.

20 Ex parte Safety Powder Co., 16 Off. Gaz. 136.

21 Re Atkins Filter Co., 3 P. R. 164.

22 Schmidt v. Brieg, 100 Cal. 672; Same v. McEwen, 35 Pac. Rep.
854; Same V. Crystal Soda Water Co., Id. 855; Same v. Steinke. Id.
855; Same v. Haake, Id. 855; Same v. Liberty Soda Works Co., Id.
856.



64 LAW OF UNFAIR TRADE. [ § 33

soap;i "Satin Polish," boots and shoes;^ "Schiedam
Schnapps,'* liquor; =^ "Selected Shore," mackerel;*
' ' Singer, " sewing- machines, after expiration of the Singer
patents;^ "Snowflake," crackers, the word being de-
scriptive of the quality of flour used;*' "Somatose,"
meat extract, from the Greek "somo," Angl. "body,"
genitive "somatos;"^ " Splendid," flour; » "Standard A,"
cigars;'' "Steel Shod," shoes having soles quilted with
steel wire ; ^'^ " Straight-Cut, " cigarettes ; " " Svenska Snus-
maganiset," meaning Swedish snuff store;^'-^ "Sweet Lo-
tus," tobacco;^^ "Swing," scythe-sockets.^^

"Taffy Tolu," chewing gum;i^ "Tasteless," drugs; i«
"Thomsonian," medicines;i^ "Timekeeper," watches;^^
"Tycoon," tea;i» "Tucker Spring," bed.^o

"United States," dental rooms. -^

"Valvolene," oil;-'^ "V-0," medicine ;23 "Vitae-Ore,"
medicine; 2^ "Victoria," lozenges.^^

iRe Meyerstein, 7 R. P. C. 114; L. R. 43 Ch. D. 604; 59 L. J. Ch.
401; 62 L. T. 526; 38 W. R. 440; Cartmell, 225.

2 Ex parte Brigham, 20 Off. Gaz. 891.

3Wolfe V. Goulard, 18 How. Pr.64; Seb. 179; Cox, Am.Tr. Cas. 226;
Burke v. Cassin, 45 Cal. 467; Wolfe v. Hart, 4 V. L. R. Eq. 125; Wolfe v.
Alsop,10V. L. R.Eq. 41; 12 V. L. R. 421; Wolfe v. Lang, 13 V. L. R. 752.

^Trask Fish Co. v. Wooster, 28 Mo. App. 408.

e Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169.

^Larrabee v. Lewis, 67 Ga. 561; 44 Am. Rep. 735.

^Farben-fabriken T. M. K., 7 R. P. C. 439; L. R. (1894) 1 Ch. 645.

8 Ex parte Stokes, 64 Off. Gaz. 437.

«Ex parte Cohn (1), 16 Off. Gaz. 680.

'«Brennan v. Emery-Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co., 99 Fed. Rep. 971.

'iGinterv. Kinney, 12 Fed. Rep. 782.

J2Bolander v. Peterson, 136 111. 215.

^3 Wellman & Dwire Tob. Co. v. Ware Tob. Works, 46 Fed. Rep. 289.

"Ex parte Thompson, Derby & Co., 16 Off. Gaz. 137.

J^Colgan V. Danheiser, 35 Fed. Rep. 150.

i«Re Dick & Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 538.

1^ Thomson v. Winchester, 36 Mass. 214.

i»Ex paite Strasburger & Co., 20 Off. Gaz. 155.

i«Corbin v. Gould, 133 U. S. 308.

-'J Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Boyington, 9 Off. Gaz. 455.

2'Cady V. Schultz, 19 R. I. 193; 61 Am. St. Rep. 763.

22ReHorsburgh, 53 L. J. Ch. 237.

23Noel V. Ellis, 89 Fed. Rep. 978-981.

24 Noel V. Ellis, supra.

25Wotherspoon v. Gray, Ct. Sess. Cas. (3d ser.) 2, 38.



§34] WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADE-MARK. 65

"Water of Ayr," stone; ^ "Webster's Dictionary," ap-
plied to the standard lexicon of that name;^ "Wister's
Balsam of White Cherry," medicine;^ "Worcestershire,"
sauce;^ "Yale," locks;'' "Yucatan," leather and leather
goods. ^

§ 34. Examples of valid trade-marks, fancy, arbi-
trary or distinctive words.— The following instances
are illustrative of fancy, arbitrary or distinctive words,
which have either been held proper, protected against
unfair competition, or their use upheld as trade-marks
in application to the classes of merchandise in connec-
tion with which the words have respectively been used.
In some cases the question of validity was not raised,
nor are all of them to be upheld as technical trade-
marks. These illustrations are given in their alphabeti-
cal order to facilitate reference.

"Ainsworth," thread;" "Alderney," oleomargarine;^
"American Cold Japan," paint ;'^ "American Express,"
sealing wax; ^'' "American Volunteer," shoes;" "Anato-
lia," licorice;^- "A. N. Hoxie's Mineral," soap;^^ "Anchor
Brand," wire;^^ "Annihilator," medicine;!^ "Anti-Wash-

iMontgomerie v. Donald, Ct. Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 11, 506.

^Merriam v. Texas Sifting-s Pub. Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 944-947.

•''Towle V. Spear, 7 Penn. L. J. 176; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 67; Seb. 90.

■»Lea V. Deakin, 11 Biss. 23; Lea v. Wolff, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 1;
46 How. Pr. 157; Seb. 407; Lea v. Millar, Seton (4th ed.). 242; Seb.
513.

■'Ex parte Yale & Towne Ufg. Co., 81 Off. Gaz. 801.

«Ex parte Weil, 83 Off. Gaz. 1802.

'Ainsworth v. Walmesley, 44 L. R. 1 Eq. 518.

SLauferty v. Wheeler, 11 Abb. N. C. 220; 11 Daly, 194; 63 How.
Pr. 488.

•'Reeder v. Brodt, 6 Ohio Dec. 248; 4 Ohio X. P. 265.

i»Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Mfg-. Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 651-653.

"Joseph Banig-an Rubber Co. v. Bloomingdale, 89 Off . Gaz. 1670.

i^McAndrews v. Bassett, 4 DeG. J. & S. 380; 33 L. J. Ch. 566; 10
Jur. N. S. 550; 10 L. T. N. S. 442; 12 W. R. 777; 4 N. R. 123; Cox,
669. Anatolia is a geographical name, but its use here was protected
on the theory of unfair competition.

i^Hoxie V. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592.

•••Edelsten V. Edelsten, 1 DeG. J. & S. 185; Cox, 667.

'•■^Re N. Jenkins, Cert. No. 746; Fulton v. Sellers, 4 Brewst. 42.



66 LAW OF UNFAIR TRADE. [§34

board," soap;^ "Apollinaris," mineral water;-' "Arctic,"
soda apparatus.'^

"Baco-Curo," remedy for tobacco habit;* "B. B. B.,"
medicine;^ "B. B. H." with a crown, iron;" "Bafle,"
safes;' "Balm of Thousand Flowers," cosmetic;^
"Beatty's Headline," copy book;'' "Bell of Moscow,"
wine;^" "Benedictine," liqueur;" "Bethesda," mineral
water;^- "Bismarck," paper collars;^^ "Blackstone," ci-
g"ars;" " Blood Searcher," medicine;^'^ "Blue Lick,"water;^"
"Boker's Stomach Bitters," medicine;" "Bovilene," po-
made ; ^^ " Bo vril, " meat extract ; ^^ " Bromidia , " medicine ; ^°
"Bromo-Caffeine," medicine ;^^ "Brown Dick," tobacco. "^"^



lO'Rourke v. Central City Soap Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 576.
^Apollinaris Co. v. Norrish, 33 L. T. N. S. 242; Same v. Edwards,
Seton (4th ed.), 237; Same v. Moore, Cox, Manual, Case No. 675;
Same v. Herrfeldt, 4 P. R. 478; Same v. Scherer, 27 Fed. Rep. 18.
3 Re James W. Tufts, Cert. No. 678.

* Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical and Mfg. Co., 80 Fed.
Rep. 105; 49 U. S. App. 709; 25 C. C. A. 314.

^Foster v. Blood Balm Co. (Ga.), 3 S. E. Rep. 284.
6Hall V. Barrows, 4 DeG. J. & S. 150; Cox, 668.
^Talbotv. Webley, 3 R. P. C. 276; Cartmell, 324.
**Fetridge v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr. 156.

"Gage V. Canada Publ. Co., 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 306; 6 Out. Rep. 68;
11 Ont. App. 402.
10 Re Charles Narcisse Ferre, Cert. No. 8939.
"Societe Anonyme v. "Western Distilling Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 416.
12 Dunbar v. Glenn, 42 Wis. 118; Seb. 529.

i^Messerole v. Tynberg, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 410; 36 How. Pr. 14;
Cox, 479; Seb. 300.

" Levy V. "Waitt, 56 Fed. Rep. 1016.

I'^Fulton V. Sellers, 4 Brewst. 42; Cox, Manual, Case No. 279.
i«Northcutt V. Turney, 101 Ky. 314; 41 S.W. Rep. 21; Parkland Hill
Blue Lick Water Co. v. Hawkins (Ky,), 26 S. W. Rep. 389; 95 Ky.
502; 16 Ky. Law Rep. 210; 44 Am. St. Rep. 254.

I'Funke v. Dreyfus, 34 La. Ann. 80; 44 Am. Rep. 413.
'**Lockwood V. Bostwick, 2 Daly, 521.
'3 Re Bovril, L. R. (1896) 2 Ch. D. 600.

»JBattle V. Finlay (2), 50 Fed. Rep. 106; Battle v. Finlay (1), 45
Fed. Rep. 796.

2iKeasbey v. Brooklyn Chemical "Works, 37 N. E. Rep. 476; 142
N. Y. 467; reversing s. c, 21 N. Y. Supp. 696.
22 J. W. Carroll, Cert. No. 157.



§34] WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID TRADE-MARK. 67

"Cashmere Bouquet,'' toilet soap;^ "Celluloid," com-
pound of pyroxyline;-' "Centennial," clothing,'^ or alco-
holic spirits;* "Champion," flour;"' "Charley's Aunt,"
name of farce;*' "Charter Oak,"' stoves; ' "Chatterbox,"
juvenile books, published periodically;** "Chicago
Waists," corset waists;'' "Chicken Cock," whisky; ^°
"Chinese Liniment;"" "Climax,'' stoves;'-' "Club Soda,"
carbonated water;" "Coal Oil Johnny's Petroleum,"
soap;'* " Cocoaine,'' hair oil; '^ " Compactum," umbrellas; '^
"Congress Water,'' mineral water;'' "Cottolene,'" lard
substitute;'** "Cough Cherries, "confectionery;''' "Cream,"
baking powder;-'^ "Crystal," castor oil;"^' "Cuticura,"
toilet soap."-"

"Damascus Blade," scythes;-^ "Daniel," bridle bits