A. Bauer & Co. v. La Societe Anonyme De La Distillerie De La Liqueur Benedictine De L'abbaye De Fecamp

Citations

• 120 F. 74
• 56 C.C.A. 480
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4462

Syllabus

<p>1. Unfair Competition — Imitation of Packages — Intent.</p> <p>While no manufacturer of an article has a monopoly of form of package, or of color or of shape of letters, or of geographical names, he is yet entitled to protection against one who imitates his packages in any or all of such matters with the intent to deceive purchasers into buying his goods as those so imitated in dress, and in such manner as to render such deceit probable.</p> <p>2. Trade-Marks — “Benedictine”—Unfair Competition.</p> <p>“Bénédictine” is a cordial made for 300 years by the Bénédictine Monks at their monastery at Fecamp in Normandy, France. Them monastery having been destroyed and the monks driven out during the French Revolution, the recipe for the cordial, which was secret, descended by inheritance to one who in 1863 commenced its manufacture and sale commercially on a part of lands formerly held by the monks, then giving it the name of Bénédictine, by which it has become well known and attained a large sale. It has been put up since that time in a peculiar shaped bottle, having thereon distinctive labels and seals. The name was registered as a trade-mark in the United States in 1876, as were also the labels. Such person afterward organized the complainant corporation, to which he transferred the business and in which he became the principal stockholder. Defendant about 1898 placed on the market a cordial in bottles of the same sizes and of nearly the exact shape of those of complainant, having labels and seals similarly placed thereon and of similar appearance, having printed thereon the name “Biqueur de St. Benedict” and the word “St. Benedict” blown in the bottle in the place of the word “Bénédictine” in complainant’s bottles. The printed matter on the labels was not the same, but was in French, although the article was made in Chicago. Held, that it was evidently defendant’s intention to palm off its goods as those of complainant, and that complainant was entitled to an injunct