SAXLEHNER
v.
SIEGEL-COOPER COMPANY; SAXLEHNER V. GIES; SAXLEHNER V. MARQUET
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Saxlehner sought injunctive relief against retail dealers who sold competing mineral water under labels simulating his "Hunyadi" brand, with the water supplied by the Eisner and Mendelson Company. The Supreme Court held that an injunction should issue against all defendants for trademark infringement, even though the Siegel-Cooper Company acted in good faith, establishing that innocent infringement does not excuse liability for trademark violations, though it may affect remedies such as accounting for profits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court.
These three cases were brought against retail dealers, and defended by the Eisner and Mendelson Company, who imported and furnished-the defendants with the water sold by them. The bills charged the defendants generally with unlawfully selling bitter water under labels simulating Saxlehner’s blue and red label, and under the name “ Hunyadi.” The answer was substantially the same as that in the main case, and the same record of proofs was used.
In the case against the Siegel-Cooper Company there was no charge of an intentional fraud, and the court found there was no evidence of fraudulent conduct on its part, and dismissed the bill as to that company. As to the other two cases the court found that the clerks in charge of their stores, in response to special requests for Janos water, wrapped up and delivered Matyas water purchased of the Eisner and Mendelson Company. In other words that they had palmed off the one for .the other. We think that an injunction should issue against all these defendants, but that, as the Siegel-Cooper Company appears to have acted in good faith, and the sales of the others were small, they should not be required to account for gains and profits. The fact that the Siegel-Cooper Company acted innocently does not exonerate it from the charge of infringement. Moet v. Couston, 33 Beav. 578; Millington v. Fox, 3 Myl, & Cr. 338; Edelsten v. Edelsten, 1 De Gex, J. & S. 185; Brown on Trade Marks, § 386.
The deeree of the Circuit Court of Appeals in these cases are also reversed, and the cases rema/nded to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings, etc.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1918)…sustained, but without accounting for profits or assessment of damages for unfair trade; citing McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245; Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514; Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U. S. 19, 39; Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that in view of the fact that Rectanus had used the mark for a long period of years in entire -ignorance of Mrs. Regis ’ remedy. .or of. her trade-mark, had expended money in .making his mark well known, and had es…1 / 2
-
Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1942)…, neither of which is deserved. Finding nothing in the Trade-Mark Act of 1905 which compels such a result, I can see no abuse of discretion in the decree of the trial court which the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42. Cf. Straus v. Notaseme Co., 240 U. S. 179, 182-183. The committee reports upon the bill which became the 1905 Act make these observations on §19: “By section 19 provision is made for proceedings in equity against the infringer of a registered trad…
-
Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1947)…ing will be ordered merely because there has been an infringement. Under the Trade Mark Act of 1905,7 as under its predecessors, an accounting has been denied where an injunction will satisfy the equities of the case. Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42; Rowley Co. v. Rowley, 193 P. 390, 393; Middleby-Marshall Oven Co. v. Williams Oven Mfg. Co., 12 F. 2d 919, 921; Golden West Brewing Co. v. Milonas & Sons, 104 F. 2d 880, 882; Hemmeter Cigar Co. v. Congress Cigar Co., 118 F. 2d 64, 71-72; Durable To…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence