SAXLEHNER
v.
WAGNER

U.S. | 1910-02-21
No. 81
216 U.S. 375 Supreme Court of the United States (1910) Caution
Also reported at: 54 L. Ed. 525 · 30 S. Ct. 298 · SCDB 1909-090 · 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1902
Cited by 57 cases

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.

Synopsis

A Hungarian water proprietor sought an injunction to prevent a Cincinnati manufacturer from using "Hunyadi" or "Hunyadi Janos" on its artificially-produced bitter water. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the suit, holding that competitors have the right to imitate unpatented products and accurately describe what they are copying, and that "Hunyadi" had become public property and a geographical expression in the United States and therefore could not be monopolized as a trademark.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner is the owner of wells'in Budapest from which comes the water known throughout the world by the arbitrary name Hunyadi Janos given to it by her husband. .The respondents make a bitter water in Cincinnati and label it “W. T. Wagner’s Sons Carbonated Artificial Hunyadi Conforming to Fresenius Analysis of Hunyadi Janos Springs.” Formerly they for a time labeled it “W. T. Wagner’s Sons Artificial 'Hunyadi Janos. Ofen Bitter 'Water. Highly Aerated,” but this label had been given up before the bill was brought. The petitioner seeks an injunction against the use of either ‘Hunyadi Janos’ or ‘Hunyadi’ on any water not coming from her wells. Thé Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a more or less similar case granted an injunction against the use of the word Hunyadi. Thackeray v. Saxlehner, 125 Fed. Rep. 911; S. C., 60 C. C. A. 562. . In the ' present suit the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court of Ap-. peals, treating the right of the petitioners to ‘Hunyadi Janos’ as admitted, refused an injunction against the use of ‘Hun-yadi,’ and finding that no unfair competition was shown' dismissed the bill. 157 Fed. Rep. 745; S. C., 85 C. C. A.. 321.. A writ of certiorari was allowed by this court.

We see no reason for disturbing the finding of the courts - below that there was n© unfair competition and no frauds The real intent of the plaintiff’s bill, it seems t,o us, is to extend the monopoly of such trade-mark or trade name as she may have to a monopoly of her type of bitter water, by preventing manufacturers from telling the public in a way that will be. understood what they are copying and trying to sell. But the plaintiff has no'patent for the water,'and the defendants have á right' to reproduce it as nearly as they can. They have a right to tell the public what they are doing and to get whatever share they can in the popularity of the water by advertising that they are trying to make the same article .and think thát they succeed. If they do-not convey,- but, on the. -contrary, exclude the notion 'that they are selling the plaintiff’s goods, it is a strong proposition that when the article has a well-known name they have not the right to explain by that name what they imitate. By-doing so they are not trying to get the good will of the name, but the good will of the goods. See Flagg Manufacturing Co. v. Holway, 178 Massachusetts, 83, 91; Chadwick v. Covell, 151 Massachusetts, 190, 191. Although the application is different, the principle seems to be similar to the rule that when a patent has -expired descriptive words or even an .arbitrary or personal name by which it has become, known may be used if sufficient precautions are taken to'prevent the public from being deceived. See Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co., 163 U. S. 169.

The plaintiff says that no one can succeed in imitating a natural water. But all are free to try. In the absence of some fraud injurious to the plaintiff, it would be going far under any circumstances to allow her to prevent advertising “Artificial Hunyadi.” But it is enough, to say that under the decision in Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U, S. 19, 36, the defendants may do so in this case. In that decision it was said that ‘Hunyadi,1 as applied to similar water, had been public property in Hungary, and therefore had. become so here, and that a later change there would not work a .corresponding change in the United States. ‘The right to individual appropriation once lost 4s gone forever.’, See also French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Co., 191 U. S. 427, 437. At the very least the family name has become the name for any natural wate-r of a certain type coming from'a more or less extensive district, if not from anywhere in Hungary: It does not belong to the plaintiff alone in this country,-even if she is the only one now sending the water here. But if there is any-well-founded doubt as to .the right to use a personal trade name with proper guards against deception to signify what one is imitating ^where one has the right to imitate, there can be none that .one is at liberty to refer to a geographical expression to signify the source of one’s model.- ‘Hunyadi’ at best is now only-á geographical expression in effect.

Decree affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1982)
    …e in the first place. To be sure, the very existence of generic drugs “facilitates” illegal substitution. But Ives no longer has a patent for cyclandelate, “and the defendants have a right to reproduce it as nearly as they can.” Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U. S. 375, 380 (1910) (Holmes, J.). Reproduction of a functional attribute is legitimate competitive activity. I am also mindful that functionality is a defense to a suit under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act alleging damages from a competitor’s “false designation…
  • Kellogg Co. v. Nat'l Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1938)
    …term is generic, the original maker of the product acquired no exclusive right to use it. As [*117] Kellogg Company had the right to make the article, it had, also, the right to use the„term by which the public knows it. Compare Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U. S. 375; Holzapfel's Compositions Co. v. Rahtjen’s American Composition Co., 183 U. S. 1. Ever since 1894 the article has been known to the public as shredded wheat. For many years, there was no attempt to use the term “Shredded Wheat” as a trade-mark. When…
  • Int'l News Serv. v. The Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1918)
    …ame value. Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540, 544; Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict, 198 U. S. 118; Donnell v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 208 U. S. 267; Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U. S. 88. See Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U. S. 375. The means by which the International News Service obtains news gathered by the Associated Press is also clearly unobjectionable. It is taken from papers bought in the open market or from bulletins publicly posted. [*260] No breach of contract such…

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

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw