Virginia having an equal right of user; Illinois Watch-Case Co. v. Elgin etc. Watch Co., 94 Fed. 669, 35 C. C. A. 237, holding the word "Elgin" cannot be used as a trademark; El Modello Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Gato, 25 Fla. 909, 23 Am. St. Rep. 539, 6 L. R. A. 827, 7 South. 26, enjoining the use of the name "Key West" in connection with maker's own name for cigars not manufactured at "Key West" as infringing the rights of a manufacturer of same name at Key West; Bolander v. Peterson, 136 Ill. 219, 11 L. R. A. 351, 26 N. E. 604, the words "Sweedish Snuff Store" or "Magazine" are not competent as trademark; Elgin Butter Co. v. Elgin Creamery Co., 155 Ill. 133, 40 N. E. 618, holding that an incorporation of the "Elgin Butter Company" does not prevent a subsequent incorporation of the "Elgin Creamery Company" nor the sale by the latter of "Elgin Butter"; Metcalfe v. Brand, 86 Ky. 346, 9 Am. St. Rep. 289, 5 S. W. 778, enjoining the use of colorable imitations of labels and wording and holding the name of Lexington in connection with a manufactured article might be a valid trademark dependent on prior user; Connell v. Reed, 128 Mass. 477, 35 Am. Rep. 397, doubting if the words "East Indian," in connection with "remedy" or "remedies," could be used as a trademark; Laughman's Appeal, 128 Pa. St. 19, 5 L. R. A. 601, 18 Atl. 417, holding that while the name of a private estate may be used as a trade name, that of a large tract, including several estates, cannot be made an exclusive trademark. Qualified in Atwater v. Castner, 88 Fed. 643, 32 C. C. A. 77, holding enjoining use of word "Pocahontas" by another miner in the same district (but see Coffman v. Castner, 87 Fed. 460, 31 C. C. A. 55); Newman v. Alvord, 51 N. Y. 196, 10 Am. Rep. 594, holding that the name "Akron" applied to cement was a valid trademark as against parties making cement elsewhere. Distinguished in Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U. S. 257, 60 L. Ed. 633, 36 Sup. Ct. 271, holding "American Girl" subject to appropriation as trademark for shoes; Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 221 U. S. 591, 55 L. Ed. 869, 31 Sup. Ct. 669, holding "Chartreuse" as applied to liquor made at Grande Chartreuse was validly registered trademark; Barnes v. Pierce, 164 Fed. 214, holding maker of preparation called by him "Argyrol" could enjoin others from selling different preparation under that name; Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co., 108 Fed. 826, 832, 48 C. C. A. 48, holding words "American Ball Blue" and "American Wash Blue" subject to trademark; La Republique Francaise v. Saratoga Vichy Springs Co., 107 Fed. 461, 46 C. C. A. 418, enjoining use of name "Vichy," designating locality of origin and indicating characteristics of water long known to trade, in neck label; Computing Cheese Cutter Co. v. Dunn, 45 Ind. App. 25, 29, 88 N. E. 95, 96, holding "The Anderson Cheese Cutter Company" could enjoin use by rival of "The Computing Cheese Cutter Company of Anderson"; Nesne v. Sundet, 93 Minn. 302, 101 N. W. 492, corporation enjoined from using trade name lawfully adopted prior to its incorporation by partnership engaged in like business at same place; La Republique Francaise v. Schultz, 57 Fed. 40, holding the word "Vichy," in connection with mineral waters, may be used as a trade name, but not deciding whether a geographical name may become a trademark where its owner is owner of the place of origin and has a monopoly of the product; Glendon Iron Co. v. Uhler, 75 Pa. St. 470, 15 Am. Rep. 601, denying protection to name of a place which was afterward made into a borough and used by another company; Dunbar v. Glenn, 42 Wis. 137, 24 Am. Rep. 398, holding the name "Bethseda," as applied to a natural mineral spring, could be used by the proprietor as a trademark as indicating origin or ownership. Use of geographical name as unfair competition. Note, 10 Ann. Right to protection in use of geographical name. Note, 26 L. R. A. When the adoption or limitation of what is claimed as a trademark is just as true in its application to defendant's goods as to those of claimant, there is no legal or moral wrong. Equity will not enjoin against telling the truth. Approved in Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, 198 U. S. 140, 49 L. Ed. 986, 25 Sup. Ct. 609, maker of typewriters under name "Remington" cannot enjoin Remington and Sholes from using name "Remington-Sholes" on machines; Brown Chemical Co. v. Myer, 31 Fed. 456, where an injunction was refused to prevent sale of Brown's Iron Tonic as infringing on Brown's Iron Bitters, when Brown was actually the name of the compounder; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 31 Fed. 787, holding the letters "L. L.," as applied to sheetings indicative of grade, might be used by all manufacturers of same class of goods; PillsburyWashburn Flour Mills Co. v. Eagle, 86 Fed. 619, 41 L. R. A. 168, 30 C. C. A. 386, but when a man manufactures his goods at a particular place and uses its name as part of his trademark, no other person may use the name of the same place upon goods not manufactured there; Schmidt v. Brieg, 100 Cal. 678, 679, 22 L. R. A. 792, 35 Pac. 624, 625, holding the words "Sarsaparilla and Iron" are not competent as a trademark; Sanders v. Bond, 47 Mo. App. 367, holding that an ex-employee may advertise the fact of his former employment, so that he does not try and induce the belief that he is carrying on business for former employers; Caswell v. Davis, 58 N. Y. 235, 17 Am. Rep. 242, holding the term "Ferro Phosphorated Elixir of Calisaya Bark" could not be protected as a trademark; Colman v. Crump, 70 N. Y. 579, enjoining use of a colorable imitation of the bull's head mark adopted for Col man's mustard; Glendon Iron Co. v. Uhler, 75 Pa. St. 471, 15 Am. Rep. 602, holding that the name of "Glendon," a town, could not be exclusively appropriated; Carmichel v. Latimer, 11 R. I. 410, 23 Am. Rep. 495, refusing to enjoin the use of name "Stillman Mill," owned and run by user, at suit of successors by purchase of another mill formerly owned by "Stillman & Co.," whose style they continued to use as trademark. Limited in American Brewing Co. v. St. Louis Brewing Co., 47 Mo. App. 20, holding that the ruling will not apply to a case where the truth is told with intent to and does deceive, and a distinctive word not available as a trademark would yet be protected against a fraudulent imitation. Trademarks. Notes, 23 Am. Rep. 29; 47 Am. Dec. 286, 291; 95 Am. Right to trademark in invented words. Note, 25 E. R. C. 257. Loss of right to relief against infringement of trademark or trade name by acquiescence, laches, or delay. Note, 18 Ann. Cas. 460. Miscellaneous. Cited in Saxlehner v. Eisner, 140 Fed. 940, there is little analogy between trademark property rights and patents for inventions; Myers v. Reed, 9 Sawy. 137, 17 Fed. 404, intended for Williams v. Kirtland, 13 Wall. 311, 20 L. Ed. 684. 13 Wall. 329-335, 20 L. Ed. 696, THE PATAPSCo. Necessary supplies to ship in foreign port to enable her to proceed draw the inference that credit was given to the vessel, unless it can be inferred that master had funds or owners credit, and that the materialman knew this or was guilty of laches. Approved in The O. H. Vessels, 177 Fed. 591, holding repairs on vessel in foreign port under contract with charterer but confirmed by master with knowledge of owner created lien on vessel; The Wyandotte, 136 Fed. 473, where charterer's agent in foreign port procured libelant to purchase master's draft for payment of necessaries, owners cannot offset against same demurrage claims against charterers; The Surprise, 129 Fed. 875, 64 C. C. A. 309, supplies furnished vessel on order of master in foreign port create lien though vessel navigated by charterer, who is bound to make disbursements and protect vessel from liens; The Iris, 100 Fed. 107, 40 C. C. A. 301, holding, purchase price partly paid, purchaser under agreement for repair of vessel has lien thereon; The Emily Souder, 17 Wall. 669, 21 L. Ed. 684, holding that moneys advanced for expenses of towage into port, pilotage dues, consular fees, and medical attendance, stood in same rank with repairs and supplies; The Glide, 167 U. S. 610, 42 L. Ed. 297, 17 Sup. Ct. 931, affirming the power of admiralty to enforce a lien for repairs created by State law by a proceeding in rem; The Metropolis, 8 Ben. 23, Fed. Cas. 9502, holding there was no lien where it was proved owners had credit and that libelants knew it; The Walkyrien, 11 Blatchf. 242, Fed. Cas. 17,092, holding that the rule was not affected by residence of foreign owner in State where supplies were furnished unless the materialman had knowledge of the fact; Harney v. The Sydney L. Wright, 5 Hughes, 484, Fed. Cas. 6082a, sustaining lien for supplies to a foreign vessel furnished on order of nonresident charterer; The Secret, 15 Fed. 480, denying lien for supplies in foreign port furnished on order of charterers, when materialman could have ascertained the fact by use of due diligence; The Ludgate Hill, 21 Fed. 432, sustaining lien for supplies ordered by ship's agent in a foreign port; The Suliote, 23 Fed. 926, holding when supplies were ordered by ship brokers, the materialmen were bound to ascertain their authority; Moore v. The Robilant, 42 Fed. 165, sustaining lien for supplies on order of master furnished by the charterers and general agents of the ship; Freights of The Kate, 63 Fed. 719, sustaining lien on freights, as inferred from guarantee of letters of credit, to enable purchase of supplies; The Bertha M. Miller, 79 Fed. 366, 24 C. C. A. 641, holding that where the materialman knew that master would have available funds from sale of cargo, there was no lien on ship; Freights of The Kate, 63 Fed. 713, arguendo. Distinguished in The New Brunswick, 129 Fed. 895, 64 C. C. A. 325, where place of business of corporation which is owner of vessel is at port in State other than that of its creation, master cannot impress lien for supplies in that port, where furnisher knew facts; The Alice Tainter, 14 Blatchf. 42, Fed. Cas. 195, holding that where a domestic vessel was put under a foreign flag, but remained under control of original owners to the knowledge of materialman, there was no lien on the ship for supplies in her home port; Stephenson v. The Francis, 21 Fed. 722, holding that, for ordinary supplies furnished on order of captain with notice, the ship was not to be bound, and if materialman knew charterer was to pay, there was no lien; The Esteban de Autunano, 31 Fed. 923, 924, dismissing libel when materialman knew that the master ordering the supplies had no authority to bind the ship. What contracts will support maritime lien. Note, 70 L. R. A. 402. If owners of ship in foreign port are proved to be in financial straits and borrowing money in the port, it is a reasonable inference that materialman knew the fact, and presumption is that supplies were on credit of ship. Approved in In re Alaska Fishing & Development Co., 167 Fed. 879, holding where insolvent fish-packing company had catch on barge without motive power, tug owner who towed barge by consent of master had lien on barge and cargo; The Chicklade, 120 Fed. 1006, holding stevedore not entitled to lien, having knowledge ship under charter to same persons employing him; Cuddy v. Clement, 113 Fed. 460, 461, 51 C. C. A. 288, holding coal dealers in light of circumstances and previous transactions without lien upon vessel for coal supplies; The Valencia, 165 U. S. 267, 269, 41 L. Ed. 712, 713, 17 Sup. Ct. 324, 325, holding that for supplies or repairs on order of charterer furnisher has no lien if the circumstances put him on inquiry and he fails to inquire; The Havana, 54 Fed. 203, sustaining liens for supplies ordered by the general business manager and one of the stockholders acting as general agent for the owners; The Advance, 72 Fed. 798, 19 C. C. A. 194, holding that no lien on ship arises from a guarantee of letters of credit for supplies on request of known insolvent owner expressly secured by a lien on freight. (See Freights of The Kate, 63 Fed. 719.) Supplies furnished in a foreign port without payment on delivery and put on board ship draw presumption of law that credit is given to ship, not to owners. Approved in The Vigilancia, 58 Fed. 700, holding that the furnishing of supplies to create a lien is not performed until a delivery to the ship or within immediate control of her master. If credit is given to vessel there is a lien, and the burden of displacing it is on claimant who must show affirmatively that credit was given to owner to exclusion of ship. Approved in The Yankee, 233 Fed. 925, 926, holding one furnishing supplies to vessel not entitled to lien where shown supplies not actually delivered to or used on vessel; John L. Lawrence, 231 Fed. 511, holding sale of supplies to charterer of several vessels and taking his notes therefor by consent of owner created lien on vessels, and filing libel against one for portion of claim did not waive lien on others; The Underwriter, 119 Fed. 752, dismissing libel where owner at time sup plies furnished refused to allow lien; Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baring, 20 Wall. 164, 22 L. Ed. 252, holding that when the need for repairs and supplies is shown the owners must establish that the funds could have been obtained on their personal credit; The Dora, 34 Fed. 347,sustaining lien for advances against holders of bottomry bonds who failed to show that credit was given to the owners; Norwegian S. S. Co. v. Washington, 57 Fed. 225, 226, 6 C. C. A. 313, sustaining a lien for stevedore's services in the absence of proof that he knew the charter bound the charterers to the cost of loading and unloading; The Alvira, 63 Fed. 154, applying rule to a lien under California Civil Code, section 813, for supplies in home port; The Allianca, 63 Fed. 732, disallowing lien where agreement indefinite; The George Dumois, 68 Fed. 929, 15 |