GULDEN v. CHANCE et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. No. 1,353. August 18, 1910.) INTENT. 1. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES (§ 55*)-INFRINGEMENT The infringement of a trade-mark, either registered or unregistered, does not necessarily involve actual fraud, or even wrongful intent, on the part of the infringer. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 63; Dec. Dig. § 55.*] 2. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES (§ 75*)-Unfair COMPETITION-IMITATION OF PACKAGES. In determining an issue of unfair competition by a manufacturer in imitating the label or dress of a competitor, under which the article is sold at retail, the question is not whether jobbers or dealers would be deceived, but whether the resemblance is such as is calculated and intended to deceive the ultimate purchaser. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. 86; Dec. Dig. § 75.* Unfair competition, see notes to Scheuer v. Smiller, 20 C. C. A. 165; Lare v. Harper & Bros., 30 C. C. A. 376] 3. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES (§ 67*)—UNFAIR COMPETITION-RIGHT TO PROTECTION. A defendant, shown to have indulged in unfair competition with respect to the business of the complainant, carried on under certain labels and packages, is not entitled to immunity by reason of the fact that complainant has used in his business other labels and packages, as to which no charge of unfair competition can be made. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Dec. Dig. § 67.*] 4. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES (§ 70*)—UNFAIR COMPETITION-IMITATION OF PACKAGES. Defendants held chargeable with unfair competition with complainant, a packer and seller of olives in bottles, by using a name and symbol similar to those previously adopted by complainant as trade-marks, although not infringements thereof, in connection with labels and bottles of such similarity to the special designs in use by complainant as to evidence design, and as to be calculated to deceive retail purchasers. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 81; Dec. Dig. § 70.*] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Suit in equity by Charles Gulden against Robert C. Chance, Albert Chance, and Wilmer Chance, copartners as R. C. Chance's Sons. Decree for defendants (180 Fed. 178), and complainant appeals. Reversed. The illustrations herewith shown are of certain olive bottles, with their dress, discussed in the opinion. Timothy D. Merwin, for appellant. Before BUFFINGTON and LANNING, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge. •For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes |