of the United States for the northern dis- since been engaged in the manufacture and trict of California, against Clinton E. Wor-sale of said medical preparation or remedy; den & Company, a corporation of the state that said medical preparation has always of California, and against J. A. Bright, T. been marked, named, and called by the comF. Bacon, C. J. Schmelz, and Lucius Little, plainant "Syrup of Figs," that name being citizens of the state of California. printed or otherwise marked upon every bottle, and also printed upon the boxes, packages, or wrappers in which the bottles of the preparation were packed for shipment and sale; that the complainant and its said predecessor in interest were the first to pack and dress or mark a liquid laxative preparation in the manner illustrated by exhibits "A" and "B" attached to the bill,-that is to say, in an oblong, rectangular box or carton, with statements of the virtues of the preparation printed in different languages upon the back and sides of the *carton, and on the border [518] within which, at the top, is a representation of a branch of a fig tree, bearing fruit and leaves, surrounded by the words "Fig Syrup Company," or "California Fig Syrup Company," and below which appear, in large lettillery are not deprived of their right to enjoin infringement by their addition of the word "distillers" to the words of such brand, as such use is not at all calculated to deceive. Frazier v. Dowling, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 1109, 39 S. W. 45. The bill alleged that, in the year 1879, one Richard E. Queen invented "a certain medical preparation or remedy for constipation and to act upon the kidneys, liver, stomach, and bowels, which medical compound is a combination in solution of plants known to be beneficial to the human system, forming an agreeable and effective laxative to cure habitual constipation and many ills, depending upon a weak and inactive condition of the liver, kidneys, stomach, and bowels;" that shortly after the said invention the said Queen sold and transferred all his right, title, and interest in and to said medical compound, and in and to the trade name, trade-marks, and good will of said company to the complainant company, which has ever v. Lambert, L. R. 32 Ch. Div. 247, 54 L. T. N. S. 314, 55 L. J. Ch. N. S. 377. See also as to misrepresentation as to place of manufacture, note to Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co. 45 L. ed. U. S. 365), or the nature of the article (Solis Cigar Co. v. Pozo, 16 Colo. 388, 26 Pac. 556; Wolfe v. Burke, 56 N. Y. 122; Laird v. Wilder, 9 Bush, 131, 15 Am. Rep. 707; Phalon v. Wright, 5 Phila. 464; Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144; Alden v. Gross, 25 Mo. App. 123; Seabury v. Grosvenor, 53 How. Pr. 192; Leather Cloth Co. v. American Leather Cloth Co. 4 De Gex, J. & S. 136, 33 L. J. Ch. N. S. 199, 10 Jur. N. S. 81, 9 L. T. N. S. 558, 12 Week. Rep. 289). For other cases see the note referred to supra. The more recent cases evidence no dispost-it also shows that ownership." tion to modify the rule. Equity will not interfere to protect a person In deluding the public as to the identity of the maker of his product. Hence, where a reputation has been acquired for a product because of the skill and care exercised by its maker, the continued use of the old lables by the successor to the business, with nothing to indicate a change of ownership, is such false representation as will defeat the right to enjoin infringement. Aiaska Packers' Asso. v. Alaska Improv. Co. 60 Fed. 103. And the correction of such misstatements after action to enjoin infringement is commenced, by attaching an additional label, will not cure the defect. Alaska Packers' Asso. v. Alaska Improv. Co. 60 Fed. 103. The transferee of the right to use a trademark in connection with a different article is not entitled to be protected in a court of equity against infringement. Macmahan Pharmacal Co. v. Denver Chemical Mfg. Co. 51 C. C. A. 302, 113 Fed. 468. And this principle was recognized in Jose Morales & Co. v. The Fair (Ill.) 31 Chicago Legal News, 317, which was a suit to restrain infringement of a cigar label, the court saying: "The complainant has the right to set forth on Its boxes the entire history of his cigar. If a fact, once true, by a change of circumstances becomes inaccurate, the complainant is not required to drop out that fact under the penalty of being refused relief in this court. It may display all that precedes its ownership, provided And if there is any false representation as to the origin of a product in the use of the monogram of a partnership by a corporation which succeeded it and was managed by a former member of such partnership, such conduct will not deprive the corporation of the right to enjoin infringement of its brands, where prior to such suit it had begun to stamp its product with its own name as "successor" to such partnership. Pillsbury v. Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills Co. 12 C. C. A. 432, 24 U. S. App. 395, 64 Fed. 841. So, immaterial statements on a label for malt extract, which are survivals from older labels and are not now strictly accurate, such as the designation of a certain person as sole agent for the United States, do not disentitle a manufacturer to relief against infringement. Tarrant v. Hoff, 22 C. C. A. 644, 45 U. S. App. 143, 76 Fed. 959. And the use by a corporation, on its labels for thread, of the name of a person as "sole agent" who never was such in fact, will not defeat its right to protection against infringe trade-mark, which had been assigned to it, to But to defeat the right to relief, such misrep-ment, where, by so doing, it was using the resentations must have the effect of deceiving and therefore defrauding the public. Within this rule the junior member of a firm, doing business under the firm name of father and son, who becomes sole successor to the business, is not guilty of such false representation in continuing to use the name of such firm as a trademark as will deprive him of the right to restrain its infringement. Feder v. Benkert, 18 C. C. A. 549, 44 U. S. App. 99, 70 Fed. 613. And the purchasers of a distillery who were given the exclusive privilege of continuing to use the firm name of the original owners as the name of a brand of whisky produced at such dis And statements in a label for thread, as to the age of the business, which, when applied to the owner's manufacture, are not strictly accurate, are not such false representations as to bar relief for Infringement, where they were merely intended to represent the commercial origin of the business. Clark Thread Co. v. Armitage, 21 C. C. A. 178, 45 U. S. App. 62, 74 Fed. 936. ters, the words "Syrup of Figs," and below "Syrup of Figs" or "Fig Syrup," or any colthese last-named words appears a brief state-orable imitation of the same, as a part of ment of the virtues of this preparation, to the business name of a concern making a gether with the words "Manufactured only liquid laxative medical compound. by the California Fig Syrup Company;" that the complainant has spent more than one million dollars in advertising said preparation, always under the name of "Syrup of Figs," or "Fig Syrup," throughout the United States and other countries, and that millions of bottles of said preparation have been sold; that, by virtue of the premises, the complainant has acquired the exclusive right to the name, "Syrup of Figs," or "Fig Syrup," as it is indifferently called by the public, or any colorable imitation of the same, as applied to a liquid laxative medical preparation irrespective of the form of bottle or package in which it may be sold to the public; that, by virtue of the premises, the complainant has acquired the exclusive right to the manner and form of packing the same for sale, in connection with the words A suit to restrain the infringement of labels | and packages for a medicine is not barred by reason of the issuance, in one particular year and eight years before suit was brought, of a large number of copies of an advertising circular containing a false statement as to the identity of the discoverer of the medicine or formula. C. F. Simmons Medicine Co. v. Mansfield Drug Co. 93 Tenn. 84, 23 S. W. 165. The bill charges that the defendant, wishing to trade to its own profit and advantage upon the reputation of the complainant's preparation, and desiring to impose a worthless production upon the public, has caused to be made, put up, and sold, and offered for sale, a liquid laxative medical compound, resembling complainant's preparation, under the name "Syrup of Figs" and "Fig Syrup," and marking the boxes and packages containing the same with the name "Fig Syrup" or "Syrup of Figs," and has put the preparation, under said name, in bottles and packages or cartons, so closely in imitation of the complainant's bottles and packages, as to be likely to deceive purchasers, and so as to enable unscrupulous retail dealers to palm off defendant's preparation on the con. sumers as and for the complainant's prepFig Syrup Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co. 4 C. C. A. 264, 7 U. S. App. 588, 54 Fed. 175, is based upon the conditioh of the evidence, which the court thought was insufficient to establish any fraud or imposition upon or damage to the public. The denial of a preliminary injunction to restrain the infringement of a label for "BromoQuinine," on the ground that by the use of the lude the public into the false belief that bromine was a material element in the compound, will not be disturbed on appeal, where such action was based in large part on conflicting ex parte affidavits. Paris Medicine Co. v. W. H. Hill Co. 42 C. C. A. 227, 102 Fed. 148. The exclusive use of a trade-mark which seeks word "Bromo" the manufacturer intended to deto convey the false impression that the productj is an imported article will not be protected in a court of equity. Joseph v. Macowsky, 96 Cal. 518, 19 L. R. A. 53, 31 Pac. 914. A cigar label was, however, protected against Infringement, in Jose Morales & Co. v. The Fair (I.) 31 Chicago Legal News, 317, over the objection that it falsely represented the cigars to be imported, where a customer would not be misled if he used reasonable and ordinary care in making his purchase. See also Hilson Co. v. Foster, 80 Fed. 896, infra. Representations by a manufacturer of scythe stones that his various brands were from quarries of certain names, which are in fact but nominal subdivisions of the same quarries, will not defeat his right to restrain infringement, where the stones are the identical article demanded by the preference of his customers. Cleveland Stone Co. v. Wallace, 52 Fed. 431. A person cannot hope to be protected in a court of equity against the infringement of a trade-mark which is calculated to deceive the public as to the nature of the article to which it is applied. For this reason a trade-mark in the word "Trommer" for malt extract will be denied protection in equity, where such word was used for the purpose of misleading the public into the belief that the extract was prepared in accordance with the method of a person of that name, which was commended by standard medical authorities. Buckland v. Rice, 40 Ohio St. 526. Representations that cigars which were made with Havana fillers, seed binders, and Sumatra wrappers, and sometimes with mixed Havana and seed fillers, and even wholly of seed tobacco except the wrapper, are genuine Havana cigars, will bar relief. Hilson Co. v. Foster, 80 Fed. 896. In Feder v. Brundo, 5 Ohio N. P. 275, however, the court granted a temporary restraining order against the infringement of a label for stogies, although the makers advertised them as "Havanas" or "straight Havanas," while they were in fact made of tobacco not grown in Cuba. The court reached this conclusion from the unsatisfactory condition of the evidence. from which it could not be definitely determined whether the word "Havana" as applied to tobacco refers to the place where it is grown, or has reference to its quality. See also Jose Morales & Co. v. The Fair (Ill.) 31 Chicago Legal News, 317, supra. A distiller who mixes 35 per cent of other whiskies with his own, and sells it under labels which represent it to be his own product "pure and unadulterated," and cautions the consumer to avoid imitation, is guilty of such misrepresentation as to defeat his right to enjoin infringement. Krauss v. Jos. R. Peebles Sons Co. 58 Fed. 585. The owner of a trade-mark in the name "Dar to enjoin infringement because at rare intervals he has purchased milk or cream from others to enable him to supply his customers, and in yet rarer instances purchased small amounts of butter for the same purpose. Pratt's Appeal, 117 Pa. 401, 11 Atl. 878. This principle was also applied prior to WORDEN & Co. t. CALIFORNIA FIG SYRUP Co., with the result of defeating suits to enjoin the in-lington" for butter is not deprived of his right fringement of a trade-mark in the words "Syrup of Figs" for a laxative preparation in which fg juice is a very small and nonessential element. California Fig Syrup Co. v. Putnam, 16 C. C. A. 376, 33 U. S. App. 283, 69 Fed. 740; California Fig Syrup Co. v. Stearns, 33 L. R. A. 56, 20 C. C. A. 22, 43 U. S. App. 234, 73 Fed. 813. The decision to the contrary in Improved Representations that scythe stones are made from "selected" or "the best blue Huron grit" will not defeat the right to enjoin infringement aration; and that purchasers frequently "Fig Syrup," and from putting up, selling, have been deceived and induced to buy the or dealing in any liquid laxative medical [519] compound prepared by the defendant: that preparation which shall have a tendency to the complainant has been greatly injured in deceive the public and induce buyers to purthe business in the manufacture of its liquid chase defendant's preparation, believing the laxative preparation "Syrup of Figs" or same to be complainant's preparation, and "Fig Syrup," and believes that it has suf- that defendant be perpetually enjoined from fered damage and injury by reason of de- using the words "Fig Syrup Company" as a fendant's acts to the extent of at least $10,- business name, or from using the words "Fig 000; that this is a continuing wrong, and Syrup" or "Syrup of Figs" as part of its one which it is impossible to exactly calcu- business name, in connection with the manlate, and one which, if permitted to con-ufacture and sale of a liquid laxative preptinue, will work irreparable injury to the complainant. Wherefore the complainant prayed, in its said bill, for an injunction restraining the defendant and its agents, servants, etc., from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale, directly or indirectly, any liquid laxative medical preparation, marked with the words "Syrup of Figs" or "Fig Syrup," or marked with any words which may be a colorable imitation of the name of “Syrup of Figs" or of trade-marks and labels for such stones, if the | material used is not inferior to that which the trade has accepted as of that grade. Cleveland Stone Co. v. Wallace, 52 Fed. 431. The right of the city of Carlsbad to restrain the use of the word "Carlsbad" on artificial salts not the product of the Carlsbad spring is not defeated because it sells Carlsbad Sprudel lozenges, which contain but 10 per cent of the Ingredients which are found in Carlsbad water, the balance being cane sugar. Carlsbad v. KutDOW, 18 C. C. A. 24, 35 U. S. App. 750, 71 Fed. 167. Mere boasting or harmless exaggeration is not such fraud or misrepresentation as will bar relief. Thus, the use of the words "The only high grade," on a trade-mark for oleomargarine or butterine, will not defeat the right to enjoin infringement. William J. Moxley Co. v. Braum & F. Co. 93 Ill. App. 183. And a statement by the owner of a trademark for thread, that his thread is sold "everywhere," will not prevent relief in equity for an Infringement of his trade-mark. Clark Thread Co. v. Armitage, 67 Fed. 896. But statements upon labels of bottles of medJelne, that it is "The great smallpox and dip theria cure and preventive. Cures the worst cases without marking unless already scabbed," -are so manifestly untrue and calculated to deceive the public as to deprive the owner of any right to protection in the words "The Family Physician," as the trade-mark for such mediche. Houchens v. Houchens, 95 Md. 37, 51 Atl. 822. "We do not think," said the court in Siegert v. Abbott, 72 Hun, 243, 25 N. Y. Supp. 590, that "courts of equity should be swift or vigllant to protect the manufacturer of a compound advertised and sold as a valuable medicine, which is not shown to contain a single medical ingredient, or to possess a single merit claimed for it, as against another manufacturer producing and selling a like compound." So, in a suit to restrain infringement of an alleged trade-mark in the words "One Night Cough Cure," the court, in refusing the relief sought, suggested that such words asserted a manifest falsehood or physical impossibility, but placed its decision on other grounds. Kohler Mfg. Co. v. Beeshore, 8 C. C. A. 215, 17 U. S. App. 352, 59 Fed. 572. And in Piso Co. v. Voight, 4 Ohio N. P. 347, the court said that a court of equity would be aration. The complainant also prayed for an account for damages to complainant and for gains and profits derived by the defendant company, and for such other and further relief as may be agreeable to equity and good conscience. The defendant company and the other defendants filed a joint and several answer, admitting many of the allegations of the bill, but denying and putting the complainant on proof of those which alleged any injustified in refusing to interfere in behalf of persons who claim property in a trade-mark acquired by advertising their wares under representations which are false. But a claim that a medicine will permanently cure habitual constipation is not so fraudulent or deceptive as to deprive the proprietor of his right to protection against unfair competition. California Fig Syrup Co. v. Worden, 95 Fed. 132. And a statement on a medicine label, that "this is the only genuine Simmons liver medicine," will not defeat the right to restrain infringement of labels and packages, although there are other preparations from the original formula, if they are known under a different name. C. F. Simmons Medicine Co. v. Mansfield Drug Co. 93 Tenn. 84, 23 S. W. 165. And the therapeutic merits of a widely known and commercially valuable preparation for the various ailments for which the labels declare it to be adapted will not be investigated by the court in a suit to restrain the sale of a simulated article as and for the genuine. Samuel Bros. v. Hostetter Co. 118 Fed. 257. No right to a trade-mark which includes the word "patent," and which describes the article as patented, can arise where there is and has been no patent. Nor is the claim a valid one for the other words used, where it is based upon their use in connection with that word. Holzapfel's Compositions Co. v. Rahtjen's American Composition Co. 183 U. S. 1, 46 L. ed. 49, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6. The use in trade circulars and advertisements of language clearly implying that the advertised article is protected by letters patent, while in fact such patent has expired, is a bar to equitable relief, although the objectionable language does not appear upon the product itself or in connection with the trade-mark. Preservaline Mfg. Co. v. Heller Chemical Co. 118 Fed. 103. But a trade-mark in the words "Club Soda" is not deprived of protection because the label contains the statement, "Manufactured in Ireland by H. M. royal letters patent," as these words are not calculated to represent that the composition or ingredients of the article were protected by an existing patent, being intended to mean that the product was manufactured in Ireland by means of patented machinery. Cochrane v. Macnish [1896] A. C. 225, 65 L. J. P. C. N. S. 20, 74 L. T. N. S. 109. So, the use of the word "patented" on a label tentional or actual appropriation by the de- together with certain aromatic carminatives alone; that in order to sell such a com- The cause was put at issue by a replica- A large amount of evidence was taken, and, on June 7, 1899, a decree was entered by the circuit court perpetually enjoining the defendant company and the other de fendants from making, selling, or offering to sell any liquid laxative medicine or preparation under the name of “Syr ip of Figs" or "Fig Syrup," or under any name in colorable imitation of the name "Syrup of Figs," and from making, selling, or offering to sell any medical liquid laxative preparation, put up in bottles, boxes, or packages similar in form or arrangement to the bottles or packages used by the complainant in the manufacture and sale of its said liquid laxative preparation, or so closely resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive the public, and from using the name "Fig Syrup Company," for illuminating oil, intended to denote registra-fringement The statement on a package of medicine, that the trade-mark was registered in a designated year, in which there was no provision for registration of a trade-mark, is not such misrepresentation as will defeat the right to enjoin imitation. C. F. Simmons Medicine Co. v. Mansfield Drug Co. 93 Tenn. 84, 23 S. W. 165. The use of the word "trade-mark" in connection with a particular mark used as a trademark, but which has not been registered, does not necessarily imply that registration has been obtained, so as to deprive the manufacturer of a right to an interlocutory injunction against infringement. Sen Sen Co. v. Britten [1899] 1 Ch. 692, 68 L. J. Ch. N. S. 250. was shown, said: "If we had reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment, then the legal question presented by this false statement would have required careful examination, but as the case stands we prefer to rest our decision upon the merits." 147 N. Y. 647, 42 N. E. 268. A person cannot claim present protection for a trade-mark on a theory which presupposes that the previous conduct of the business has been characterized by fraud and misrepresentation. Thus, one who has built up a business upon representations that the name under which his product was sold was descriptive of the article cannot be protected in the use of such name as a trade-mark, on the theory that such product is a new article of manufacture. Dadirrian v. Yacubian, 39 C. C. A. 321, 98 Fed. 872. And a patentee of a proprietary medicine who has claimed under the patent the exclusive right to manufacture or sell the same cannot, after the expiration of the patent, claim to have a trade-mark right in the name given to such medicine because he did not use one ingredient called for by the patent. Centaur Co. v. Marshall, 92 Fed. 605. In a case in the New York supreme court it was held on an appeal from an order denying a preliminary injunction to restrain the imitation of a soap wrapper, that an untrue statement on the wrapper, that the form of cake and wrapper "were protected by a trade-mark secured," was sufficient to bar the right to relief. Brown v. Doscher, 49 N. Y. S. R. 196, 20 N. Y. Supp. 900. This case subsequently reached the court of appeals on an appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint. The latter court, in affirming the judgment on the ground that no in- 1002. The falsity of a statement in a trade-mark will not be assumed for the purpose of defeating the owner's right to enjoin infringement, but the fraud or deceit necessary to bar relief must be pleaded and proved. Fleischmann v. Fleischmann, 7 App. Div. 280, 39 N. Y. Supp. and from using a name whereof the words ] Siegert v. Abbott, 61 Md. 276, 48 Am. Rep. "Fig Syrup" or "Syrup of Figs Company," 101; Seabury v. Grosvenor, 14 Blatchf. 262, form a part as a business name in connec- Fed. Cas. No. 12,576; Krauss v. Jos. R. tion with the manufacture of a liquid laxa- Peebles' Sons Co. 58 Fed. 585; Kohler Mfg. tive preparation. 95 Fed. 132. Co. v. Beeshore, 8 C. C. A. 215, 17 U. S. App. 352, 59 Fed. 572; Fetridge v. Wells, 13 How. Pr. 385; Schmidt v. Brieg, 100 Cal. 672, 22 L. R. A. 790, 35 Pac. 623; Phalon v. Wright, There was an appeal to the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit, where the decree of the circuit court was affirmed, Ross, C. J., dissenting. 42 C. C. A. 383, 1025 Phila. 464; Prince Mfg. Co. v. Prince's Fed. 334. The cause was then brought to this court by a writ of certiorari allowed on November 20, 1900. Mr. John H. Miller argued the cause, and, with Mr. Purcell Rowe, filed a brief for petitioner: No words can be adopted as a valid trademark which relate only to the name, quality, or description of the thing or business or place where the thing is produced or the business is carried on. Choynski v. Cohen, 39 Cal. 501, 2 Am. Rep. 476; Burke v. Cassin, 45 Cal. 467, 13 Am. Rep. 204; Schmidt v. Brieg, 100 Cal. 673, 22 L. R. A. 790, 35 Pac. 623; Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 20 L. ed. 581; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540, 35 L. ed. 247, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Town v. Stetson, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 218; Caswell v. Davis, 58 N. Y. 223, 17 Am. Rep. 233; Ayer v. Rushton, Coddington's Digest, 229; Re Dick, 9 Off. Gaz. 538; Burgess v. Burgess, 3 De G. M. & G. 896; Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144; Corwin v. Daly, 7 Bosw. 222; Phalon v. Wright, 5 Phila. 464; Liebigs Extract of Meat Co. v. Hanbury, 17 L. T. N. S. 298; Re Hauthaway, Com. Dec. '71, p. 97; Re Palmer, Com. Dec. '71, p. 289; Re Roberts, Com. Dec. '71, p. 100; Gray v. Koch. 2 Mich. N. P. 119; Re Johnson Co. 2 Off. Gaz. 315; Re Goodyear Rubber Co. 11 Off. Gaz. 1062; Re Roach, 10 Off. Gaz. 333; Gilman v. Hunnewell, 122 Mass. 139; Re Rader, 13 Off. Gaz. 596; Raggett v. Findlater, L. R. 17 Eq. 29; Siegert v. Findlater, L. R. 7 Ch. Div. 801; Godillot v. Hazard, 49 How. Pr. 5; Young v. Macrae, 9 Jur. N. S. 322; Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 20 L. ed. 581; Re Sardine Co. 2 Off. Gaz. 495; Ginter v. Kinney Tobacco Co. 12 Fed.782; Humphrey's Specific Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Wenz, 14 Fed. 250; L. H. Harris Drug Co. v. Stucky, 46 Fed. Metallic Paint Co. 135 N. Y. 24, 17 L. R. A. 129, 31 N. E. 990. It is no answer to say that the medicine is a good laxative, whether it has in it figs or not. Krauss v. Jos. R. Peebles' Sons Co. 58 Fed. 585; Fetridge v. Wells, 13 How. Pr. If there be fraud on the part of a complainant, he is not entitled to protection for his label any more than for his trade-mark. In that respect, trade-marks and labels stand on the same footing. Messrs. Warren Olney and John G. Carlisle argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent: Where a man has an established business which he is seeking to protect from unfair competition, he will be given relief if he can make any reasonable explanation of statements claimed to be false. Cochrane v. Macnish [1896] A. C. 225; insurance Oil Tank Co. v. Scott, 33 La. Ann. 946, 39 Am. Rep. 286; Siegert v. Findlater, L. R. 7 Ch. Div. 801; Fetridge v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr. 156; Ford v. Foster, L. R. 7 Ch. Div. 611; Bardou v. Lacroix, 27 Annales, 214; Brown, Trademarks, p. 83; Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker, 39 Conn. 450, 12 Am. Rep. 401; C. F. Simmons Medicine Co. v. Mansfield Drug Co. 93 Tenn. 84, 23 S. W. 169; Smith v. Sixbury, 25 Hun, 232; Tarrant Co. v. Hoff, 22 C. C. A. 644, 45 U. S. App. 143, 76 Fed. 959; Conrad v. Joseph Uhrig Brew. Co. 8 Mo. App. 277; Funke v. Dreyfus, 34 La. Ann. 80, 44 Am. Rep. 413; Moxie Nerve Food v. Baumbach, 32 Fed. 205; William Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Rogers & S. Mfg. Co. 11 Fed. 495; Price Baking-Powder Co. v. Fyfe, 45 Fed. 799; Societe Anonyme v. Western Distilling Co. 43 Fed. 416; Selchow v. Baker, 93 N. Y. 63, 45 Am. Rep. 169; Cleveland Stone Co. v. Wallace, 52 Fed. 431; Metzler v. Wood, L. R. 8 Ch. Div. 606; Alexander v. Morse, 14 R. I. 153, 51 Am. Rep. 369; Chappell v. Sheard, 2 Kay & J. 117; Chappell v. Davidson, 2 Kay & J. 123; Clark Thread Co. v. Armitage, 21 C. C. A. 178, 45 U. S. App. 62, Leather Cloth Co. v. American Leather 74 Fed. 936; Comstock v. White, 18 How. Cloth Co. 4 DeG., J. & S. 137, Affirmed 11 Pr. 421; Block v. Standard Distilling & H. L. Cas. 523; Holzapfel's Compositions | Distributing Co. 95 Fed. 978; Hoxie v. ChaCo. v. Rahtjen's American Composition Co. ney, 143 Mass. 592, 58 Am. Rep. 149, 10 183 U. S. 1, 46 L. ed. 49, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. N. E. 713; Curtis v. Bryan, 36 How. Pr. 6; Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood, 108 33; Dale v. Smithson, 12 Abbott's Pr. 237; U. S. 218, 27 L. ed. 706, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 436; Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. Guggenheim, Allan B. Wrisley Co. v. Iowa Soap Co. 104 2 Brewst. 321; Electro-Silicon Co. v. Hazard, Fed. 548; Clotworthy v. Schepp, 42 Fed. 62; 29 Hun, 369; Edleston v. Vick, 18 Jur. Alden v. Gross, 25 Mo. App. 123; Connell|7; Feder v. Benkert, 18 C. C. A. 549, 44 v. Reed, 128 Mass. 477, 35 Am. Rep. 397; U. S. App. 99, 70 Fed. 613; Holloway v. 624. A symbol or label claimed as a trade-mark, so constituted or worded as to make or contain a distinct assertion which is false, will not be recognized; nor can any right to its exclusive use be maintained. |