« ForrigeFortsett »
land Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 230 U. S., might have over the subject could only 58, 66, 72, 57 L. ed. 1389, 1393, 1396, exist by reason of silence and inaction 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988; Memphis & L. on the part of Congress. The power R. Co. v. Railroad Comrs. (Memphis of the state, if it existed at all, was not & L. R. Co. v. Berry) 112 U. S. 609, inherent, but permissive; and ceased to 616, 28 L. ed. 837, 810, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. exist the moment that Congress entered 299; Re Long Acre Electric Light & the field and exerted its dominant and P. Co. 188 N. Y. 368, 80 N. E. 1101; all-embracing authority in the matter. Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122, Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379, 56 N. E. 538; New York v. Second 387, 24 L. ed. 668, 671; Chicago, R. I. Ave. R. Co. 32 N. Y. 272; Washington & P. R. Co. v. Hardwick Farmers ElevaBridge Co. v. State, 18 Conn. 54; Grand tor Co. 226 U. S. 426, 435, 57 L. ed. 284, Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 287, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 203, 33 Sup. Ct. 227 U. S. 544, 57 L. ed. 633, 44 L.R.A. Rep. 174. (N.S.) 405, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Boisé The exertion by Congress of a power Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boisé which is granted in express terms must City, 230_U. S. 84, 57 L. ed. 1400, 33 supersede all legislation over the same Sup. Ct. Rep. 997; Russell v. Sebastian, subject by the states. 233 U. S. 195, 58 L. ed. 912, L.R.A. United States v. Utah Power & Light 1918E, 882, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, Ann. Co. 126 C. C. A. 376, 209 Fed. 554; Cas. 1914C, 1282; Detroit United R. Co. Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. v. Michigan, 242 U. S. 238, 61 L. ed. S. 59, 66, 57 L. ed. 417, 419, 33 Sup. Ct. 268, P.U.R.1917B, 1010, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. Rep. 192, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176; St.
Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 The tolls fixed by the New York Act U. S. 702, 57 L. ed. 1031, 33 Sup. Ct. of 1915 for the use of the roadway and Rep. 703; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. pathway between Buffalo and Squaw Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 104, 39 L. ed. 910, island are confiscatory, and deprive the 912, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Wisconsin v. Bridge Company of its property with. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379, 24 L. ed. 668; out due process of law.
Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. Willcox Consolidated Gas Co. 212 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Gar1134, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. rison, 237 U. S. 251, 59 L. ed. 939, 35 1034; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, Sup. Ct. Rep. 551; Texas & P. R. Co. v. 217 U. S. 196, 54 L. ed. 727, 30 Sup. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 874, 36 Ct. Rep. 461, 18 Ann. Cas. 989; San Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; New York C. R. Co. Diego Land & Town Co. v. National | v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147, 61 L. ed. 1045, City, 174 U. S. 739, 757, 43 L. ed. 1154, L.R.A.1918C, 439, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 546, 1161, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804; San Diego | Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1139, 14 N. C. C. A Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S 680; Erie R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 439, 442, 47 L. ed. 892, 894, 23 Sup. Ct. i 170, 61 L. ed. 1057, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556, Rep. 571.
Ann. Cas. 1918B, 662, 14 N. C. C. A. The rates fixed by the statute must 957; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. stand by themselves, and cannot be Harris, 247 U. S. 367, 62 L. ed. 1167, 38 justified upon the ground that the de- Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Southern P. Co. v. fendant is making money upon its inter- Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 61 L. ed. 1086, state and foreign commerce.
L.R.A.1918C, 451, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 541, 42 Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900, 14 N. C. C. A. L. ed. 819, 847, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; 597; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U. S. 363, Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson 58 L. ed. 638, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350, 6 N. Shepard) 230 V, S. 352, 435, 57 L. ed. C. C. A. 436; Kiefer v. Grand Trunk R. 1511, 1556, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 Co. 12 App. Div. 28, 42 N. Y. Supp. 171, Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; | affirmed in 153 N. Y. 688, 48 N. E. 1105; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins, Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 207, 6 176 U. S. 167, 44 L. ed. 417, 20 Sup. Ct. L. ed. 23, 72; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 Rep. 336; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. U. S. 572, 574, 575, 26 L. ed. 234, 235; Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. ed. 175, 27 | New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. TonselSup. Ct. Rep. 109.
lito, 244 U. S. 360, 61 L. ed. 1194, 37 It has always been within the power Sup. Ct. Rep. 620, 14 N. C. C. A. 1072; of Congress to exercise exclusive control New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Hudson over bridges across the Niagara river, County, 227 U. S. 248, 57 L. ed. 499, 33 both as obstructions to navigation and Sup. Ct. Rep. 269; Hubbard v. Fort, 188 as instruments of foreign commerce. Fed. 997; Hagerla v. Mississippi River Any power which the state of New York Power Co. 202 Fed. 776.
The state cannot make mandatory | 476; Southern R. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. that which Congress and the Secretary 424, 56 L. ed. 257, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; of War have left as optional.
Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Blackwell, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 244 U. S. 310, 61 L. ed. 1160, L.R.A. 617, 10 L. ed. 1060, 1089; Hall v. De 1917F, 1184, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 610; MinCuir, 95 U. S. 485, 24 L. ed. 547; Smith nesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepv. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 473, 31 L. ed. ard) 230 U. S. 352, 57 L. ed. 1511, 48 508, 510, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ct. Rep. 564; Charleston & W. C. R. Co Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Houston, E. & W. v. Varnville Furniture Co. 237 U. S. T. R. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342, 597, 59 L. ed. 1137, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715, 58 L. ed. 1341, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Ann. Cas. 1916D, 333; Ērie R. Co. v. Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U. New York, 233 U. S. 671, 58 L. ed. 1149, S. 20, 56 L. ed. 72, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2, 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 266, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 3 N. C. C. A. 822; Texas & P. R. Co. v. 756, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 138; Southern R. "Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 874, 36 Co. v. Railroad Commission, 236 U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; Baltimore & 0. R. 439, 446, 448, 59 L. ed. 661, 665, 666, 35 Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; Northern P. R. Co. v. 221 U. S. 612, 618, 55 L. ed. 878, 882, 31 Washington, 222 U. S. 370, 56 L. ed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 621. 237, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 160; St. Clair The power of Congress over this inCounty v. Interstate Sand & Car Trans- ternational bridge is exclusive, and all fer Co. 192 U. S. 454, 468–470, 48 L. ed. state legislation concerning it is ineffec518, 524, 525, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300. tive except in so far as it has been ex
The paramount and exclusive power pressly adopted and validated by Conof Congress in regard to the construc- gress, because the subject matter intion of bridges over navigable water- volves the external relations of the ways of the United States, which are United States with foreign governboundaries between two states, is well ments. established.
United States rel. Turner v. WilPennsylvania Wheeling & B. liams, 194 U. S. 279, 290, 48 L. ed. 979, Bridge Co. 18 How. 421, 15 L. ed. 435; 1983, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719; Nishimura The Clinton Bridge (Gray v. Chicago, Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, I. & N. R. Co.) 10 Wall. 454, 462, 19 659, 35 L. ed. 1146, 1149, 12 Sup. Ct. L. ed. 969, 971; Stockton v. Baltimore Rep. 336; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. & N. Y. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 411, Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 340, 53 L. ed. 32 Fed. 16, appeal dismissed in 140 U. 1013, 1022, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; ButtS. 699, 35 L. ed. 603, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. field v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 493, 1028; Decker v. Baltimore & N. Y. Ř. 494, 48 L. ed. 525, 534, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 434, 30 Fed. Rep. 349; United States v. 43 Gallons 723; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. of Whiskey (United States v. Lari153 U. S. 532, 38 L. ed. 811, 14 Sup. Ct. viere) 93 U. S. 188, 194, 23 L. ed. 846, Rep. 891; Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. 847; Head Money Cases (Edye v. RobKentucky, 154 Ù. S. 204, 38 L. ed. 962, ertson) 112 U. S. 580, 591, 28 L. ed. 798, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 649, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 801, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; Chinese Exclu1087; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. sion Case, 130 U. S. 581, 604-606, 32 Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. 233 U. S. L. ed. 1068, 1075, 1076, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 75, 58 L. ed. 857, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; 623; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 149 U. S. 698, 711, 712, 37 L. ed. 905, U. S. 364, 51 L. ed. 523, 27 Sup. Ct. 912, 913, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1016; United Rep. 367; Monangahela Bridge Co. v. States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 414, United States, 216 U. S. 177, 54 L. ed. | 30 L. ed. 425, 426, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234, 435, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356; Newport & 6 Am. Crim. Rep. 222; Holmes v. JenniC. Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. son, 14 Pet. 540, 570-574, 10 L. ed. 579, S. 470, 26 L. ed. 1143.
594-596; Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. There are
numerous cases in this S. 503, 519, 37 L. ed. 537, 543, 13 Sup. court holding that state regulations of Ct. Rep. 728; United States v. Comthe operation of railroads within a state pagnie Francaise Des Cables Telegraphare void when they would result in a iques, 77 Fed. 495; People ex rel. Barburden on interstate commerce.
low v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 328, 10 Am. Rep. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, 483; Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 207 U. S. 328, 52 L. ed. 230, 28 Sup. Ct. 125 U. S. 465, 482, 31 L. ed. 700, 706, Rep. 121; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. Inters. Com. Rep. 823, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 136, 54 L. ed. 698, 689, 1062; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 802, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 'U. S. 47, 57, 35 L. ed. 619, 652, 11 Sup.
(141) ROCK ISLAND, ARKANSAS, &, internal revenue tax under the Act of
LOUISIANA RAILROAD COMPANY, August 5, 1909, chap. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. at Appt.,
L. 11, 112, 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p.
260. It is alleged that the claimant was UNITED STATES.
not engaged in or doing business in the (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 141-143.)
year for which the tax was collected,
and that therefore it was not due. The Internal revenue
court of claims dismissed the petition on recovery back of illegal tax condition precedent
the ground that the claimant had not appeal.
complied with the conditions imposed The appeal to the Commissioner of by statute, and the claimant appealed to Internal Revenue for the payment back of a this court. tax illegally assessed, which is made by U.
The facts are simple. After the tax S. Rev. Stat. § 3226, a condition precedent was assessed, a claim for an abatement to a suit for the recovery back of such tax, may not be neglected as being an idle for: Revenue in July, 1913. On December 18
was sent to the Commissioner of Internal mality, merely because the Commissioner had, before payment of the tax, rejected a
of the  same year the Commis. claim for its abatement.
sioner rejected the application, where(For other cases, see Internal Revenue, VII. upon, on December 26, the claimant in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.)
paid the tax with interest and a pen(No. 82.]
alty. So far as appears there was
no protest at the time of payment, Submitted November 8, 1920. Decided No- and it is found that, after it, nothing vember 22, 1920.
was done to secure repayment of the
tax. By Rev. Stat. § 3226, amended A ,
review the dismissal of a petition for 69, § 1, 19 Stat. at L. 248, Comp. Stat. the recovery back of an alleged illegal | $ 5949, 3 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. tax. Affirmed.
1034, no suit shall be maintained in any The facts are stated in the opinion. court for the recovery of any tax alleged Messrs. Thomas P. Littlepage and to have been illegally assessed "until apSidney F. Taliaferro submitted the peal shall have been duly made to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue accause for appellant:
Appellant made a sufficient appeal to cording to the provisions of law in that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
regard, and the regulations of the SecSan Francisco Sav. & L. Soc. v. Cary, rectary of the Treasury established in 2. Sawy. 333, Fed. Cas. No. 12,317; pursuance thereof, and a decision of the Schwarzchild & S. Co. v. Rucker, 143 Provided," etc. Regulations of the Sec
Commissioner has been had therein; Fed. 656; Weaver v. Ewers, 115 C. C. A. 219, 195 Fed. 247; De Bary v.
retary established a procedure and a Dunne, 162 Fed. 961.
form to be used in applications for
abatement of taxes, and distinct ones Solicitor General Frierson submitted for claims for refunding them. The the cause for appellee. Mr. W. Marvin claimant took the first step, but not the Smith was on the brief:
last. A claim for abatement of the assess- By Rev. Stat. § 3220, Comp. Stat. § ment is not an appeal to the Commis- 5944, 3 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 1028, sioner for a refund of the taxes, as re. the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is quired by the statute, and its rejection authorized "on appeal to him made, to does not entitle the claimant to main- remit, refund, and pay back” taxes iltain an action in court.
legally assessed. It is urged that the Nichols v. United States, 7 Wall. 122, "appeal” to him to remit made a second 130, 19 L. ed. 125, 128; Kings County appeal to him to refund an idle act, and Sav. Inst. v. Blair, 116 U. S. 200, 205, satisfied the requirement of $ 3226. De29 L. ed. 657, 659, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353; cisions to that effect in suits against a Hastings v. Herold, 181 Fed. 759. collector are cited, the latest being Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opin
Loomis v. Wattles,
C. C. A.
266 ion of the court:
Fed. 876. But the words "on appeal to This is a claim for a sum paid as an
him made" mean, of course, on appeal in
respect of the relief sought on appeal,Note.-As to when taxes illegally to refund if refunding is what he is assessed be recovered back-see asked to do. The words of § 3226 also note to Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 21 must be taken to mean an appeal after L. ed. U. S. 63.
payment, especially in view of $ 3228,
requiring claims of this sort to be pre- alone, may be acquired by long use, so as sented to the Commissioner within two to entitle it to protection in equity against years after the cause of action accrued. infringement, whatever may have been the So that the question is of reading an im- (For other cases, see Trademark, II.; IV. a, in
original weakness of such trademark. plied exception into the rule as
Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] pressed, when substantially.
Trademark infringement misrepobjection to the assessment has been
resentation as bar to relief - situ
ation when suit is begun. urged at an earlier stage.
2. The right of plaintiff to equitable (143] Men must turn square corners relief against infringement of his tradewhen they deal with the government. If mark, where that is contested on the it attaches even purely formal condi- ground of his own fraudulent misrepre. tions to its consent to be sued, those sentations to the public, must be judged conditions must be complied with. Lex by the facts as they were when the suit non præcipit inutilia (Co. Litt. 127b) was begun, not by the facts of a different expresses rather an ideal than an ac- condition and an earlier time.
[For other cases, see Trademark, IV. b, in Dicomplished fact. But in this case we
gest Sup. Ct. 1908.) cannot pronounce the second appeal a Trademark infringement misrepmere form. On appeal a judge some- resentation as bar to equitable relief. times concurs in a reversal of his de- 3. The right to relief against palpacision below. It is possible, as suggested ble fraud by imitation of a trademark for by the court of claims, that the second a beverage will not be denied on the appeal may be heard by a different per- ground that the beverage itself had forson. At all events, the words are there tion that it contained cocaine after that
merly been sold under the false representain the statute and the regulations, and element had been eliminated, where all the court is of opinion that they mark such deception had ceased before the suit the conditions of the claimant's right. was brought, and the public had been See Kings County Sav. Inst. v. Blair, 116 warned by advertising that it must not ex. U. S. 200, 29 L. ed. 657, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. pect to find that drug in it, merely be. 353. It is unnecessary to consider other cause of the possibility that, here and objections that the claimant would have there, an ignorant person might call for to meet before it could recover upon this the drink with the hope of incipient co
caine intoxication. claim.
[For other cases, see Trademark, IV. b, in Di: Judgment affirmed.
gest Sup. Ct. 1908.) Trademark infringement unfair
competition - misrepresentation as
bar to equitable relief. COCA-COLA COMPANY,1 Petitioner,
4. The continued use of the trademark
Coca-Cola and a label containing a picture KOKE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al.
of coca leaves and cola nuts, in connection with a beverage which originally contained
cocaine, but in which coco leaves are now (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 143-147.)
used only after they have been subjected Trademark secondary meaning in
to a drastic process that removes from them
every characteristic substance except a little fringement.
1. A secondary meaning of a trade- tannin and still less chlorophyl, and whatmark, indicating the owner's product
ever of cola nut is employed furnishes but
a small part of the cafrein that is now the Note.—On the effect of deception in only element having appreciable effect, is a trademark to defeat right of action
not such misrepresentation as debars the
owner of the trademark, which has acquired for its infringement-see notes to Jo
a secondary significance, indicating his seph v. Macowsky, 19 L.R.A. 53; John- product alone, from equitable relief against son & Johnson v. Seabury & Johnson, infringers, where, whatever may have been 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1201; Nelson v. J. H. true of earlier advertising, the public is Winchell & Co. 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151; now told that it must not expect and will Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. not find cocaine, and everything tending to Co. 34 L. ed. U. S. 997; and Clinton E. suggest cocaine effects except the name and Worden & Co. v. California Fig Syrup
the picture of the leaves and nuts has been
eliminated. Co. 47 L. ed. U. S. 282.
[For other cases, see Trademark, IV. b; Unfair 1 Substitution of the Coca-Cola Company
Competition, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.) of Delaware for the Coca-Cola Company of
Injunction against infringement of Georgia, and appearance of the Coca-Cola trademark – unfair competition. Company of Delaware as the party pe
5. The owner of the trademark Cocatitioner herein, filed and entered November Cola for a beverage in which caffein is the 24, 1919. on motion of Mr. F. M. Phelps for only element having appreciable effect can the petitioner.
claim no personal right to exclude another
from using the word “dope" in connection | Broder v. Zeno Mauvais Music Co. 88 with a similar product.
Fed. 74; Employing Printers' Club v. [For other cases, see Injunction, 1. m, in Digest Dr. Blosser Co. 122 Ga. 509, 69 L.R.A.
Sup. Ct. 1908.) Injunction against infringement of 90, 106 Am. St. Rep. 137, 50 S. E. 353, trademark unfair competition.
2 Ann. Cas. 694; Peoria Gas & E. Co. v. 6. Injunctive relief to the owner of a Peoria, 200 U. S. 48, 50 L. ed. 365, 26 trademark does not extend to the product, Sup. Ct. Rep. 214; Benedictus v. Sulliwhere that is free to all who can make it van, 12 Rep. Pat. Cas. 25; Symonds v. if no extrinsic deceiving element is present. Jones, 82 Me. 302, 8 L.R.A. 570, 17 Am. [For other cases, see Injunction, I. m, 1o Digest St. Rep. 485, 19' Atl. 820; Johnson & Sup. Ct. 1908.)
Johnson v. Seabury & Johnson, 69 N. (No. 101.)
J. Eq. 696, 61 Atl. 5; W. A. Gaines &
Co. v. Turner-Looker Co. 123 C. C. A. Argued November 18 and 19, 1920. Decided 79, 204 Fed. 553; Diamond Crystal Salt December 6, 1920.
Co. v. Worcester Salt Co. 137 C. C. A.
N WRIT of Certiorari to the United 16, 221 Fed. 66; Troll v. Spencer, 238
Mo. 102, 141 S. W. 855, Ann. Cas.
1913A, 276. for the Ninth Circuit to review a decree which, reversing a decree of the trademark, acquired by priority of
The name "coca-cola” is valid District Court for the District of Arizona, remanded the cause with di- adoption and use by petitioner's prederections to dismiss the bill in a suit to cessors, because originally a novel, unenjoin infringement of a trademark
usual, and alliterative expression which, and prevent unfair competition. De
by association and extensive use, in fact cree of Circuit Court of Appeals re
identifies the product of petitioner exversed and that of District Court modi- clusively, and because whatever sugges
tion of ingredients the name conveys is fied and affirmed.
truthful. See same case below, 167 C. C. A. 214, 255 Fed. 894.
Re Burroughs, W. & Co. 21 Rep. Pat. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Cas. 217, [1904) 1 Ch. 736, 73 L. J. Ch.
N. S. 474, 32 Week. Rep. 581, 91 L. T. Mr. Frederick W. Lehmann argued N. S. 58, 20 Times L. R. 415; Eastman the cause, and, with Messrs. Harold Photographic Materials Co. v. CompHirsch, Frank F. Reed, Edward S. troller-General (1898] A. C. 571, 67 Rogers, and Charles E. Rushmore, filed L. J. Ch. N. S. 628, 79 L. T. N. S. 195, a brief for petitioner:
15 Rep. Pat. Cas. 476, 14 Times L. R. The addition to coca-cola syrup of 527, 47 Week. Rep. 152; Lawrence Mfg. caffein derived from sources other than Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co. 138 U. S. 537, the cola nut did not make the name 546, 34 L. ed. 997, 1003, 11 Sup. Ct. "coca-cola" a misbranding.
Rep. 396; Reddaway v. Benham (1896) United States v. Antikamnia Chem- A. C. 199, 65 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 381, 74 ical Co. 231 U. S. 654, 58 L. ed. 419, 34 L. T. N. S. 289, 13 Rep. Pat. Cas. 224, Sup. Ct. Rep. 222, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 49; 44 Week. Rep. 638, 25 Eng. Rul. Cas. Cleveland Stone Co. v. Wallace, 52 Fed. 193; Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Illinois 431; Jacobs v. Beecham, 221 U. S. 263, Watch Case Co. 179 U. S. 665, 45 L, ed. 55 L. ed. 729, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 555; 365, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 270; French ReThaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids Mfg. public v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. Co. 1 Trade Mark Rep. 215, 233 U. S. 191 U. S. 427, 435, 48 L. ed. 247, 248, 461, 58 L. ed. 1046, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145; Birmingham Vin648, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 322.
egar Brewery Co. v. Powell (1897] A. Cocaine was eliminated from the bev- C. 710, 66 L. J. Ch. N. S. 763, 76 L. T. erage and the early claims of medicinal N. S. 792, 14 Rep. Pat. Cas. 720, 727; virtues were abandoned many years be- Montgomery v. Thompson (1891) A. C. fore this suit was instituted. The re-217, 60 L. J. Ch. N. S. 757, 64 L. T. N. quirement of clean hands as a condi- S. 748, 55 J. P. 756, 6 Rep. Pat. Cas. tion of equitable relief is met in this 404, 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 365; Wotherspoon case by the conditions as they existed v. Currie, L. R. 5 H. L. 508, 27 L. T. when this suit was brought, and as N. S. 393, 42 L. J. Ch. N. S. 130; Bagthey had been established by the peti- lin v. Cusenier, 221 U. S 580, 55 L. ed. tioner for many years before.
863, 31 Sur. Ct. Rep. 669; Jacobs v. Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Modox Co. Beecham, 221 U. S: 263, 55 L. ed. 729, 153 Fed. 487; Pillsbury V. Pillsbury- 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 555; McLean v. FlemWashburn Flour Mills Co. 12 C. C. A. ing, 96 U. S. 245, 254, 24 L. ed. 828, 432, 64 Fed. 841, 24 U. S. App. 395;' 832; Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Clark,