Capewell Horse Nail Co. v. Putnam Nail Co.

Citations

• 140 F. 670
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4820

Syllabus

<p>1. Trade-Marks — Pattern on Article of Manufacture.</p> <p>Complainant was a manufacturer of horseshoe nails sold to the trade in cartons and boxes, and' for a number of years had placed on the face of the head of one of its several brands of nails a common form of check pattern formed by the intersection of diagonal lines, and made by the die which formed the head. The president of complainant testified that the marking was adopted as an ornamentation, and as a distinguishing mark of complainant’s make, but public attention was not called to it in the advertisements of complainant, nor upon its cartons or boxes which displayed its registered trade-mark and other matters of information. EM, that the fact of such use alone did not constitute the marking a trademark, in the absence of clear proof that it was adopted and used as such, or that it had become associated in the mind of the public with complainant’s make of nails.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, §§ 29-31.]</p> <p>2. Same — Unfair Competition.</p> <p>The stamping by defendant on one side of the head of horseshoe nails made by it of a diagonal check pattern in prior use by complainant did not constitute unfair competition, where the cartons and boxes in which the nails were sold were entirely unlike those used by complainant, and there was no attempt to deceive purchasers into buying the nails as those of complainant, and where it was further shown that the mark resulted from “knurling” one face of the die to secure its better operation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, §§ 78-82.</p> <p>Unfair competition, see notes to Scheuer v. Muller, 20 C. O. A. 165; Dare v. Harper & Bros., 30 C. C. A. 376.]</p>