Menendez v. Holt

Citations

• 128 U.S. 514
• 9 S. Ct. 143
• 32 L. Ed. 526
• 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2246

Syllabus

<p>A combination of words, made by a firm engaged in mercantile business, from a foreign language, in order to designate merchandise selected by them in the exercise of their best judgment as being of a certain standard and of uniformity of quality, may be protected to them and for their use as a trade-mark, and does not fall within the rule in Manufacturing Co. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51.</p> <p>The addition of the infringer’s name to a trade-mark in the place of the-owner’s does not render the unauthorized use of it any less an infringement.</p> <p>When a partner retires from a firm, assenting to or acquiescing in the retention by the other partners of the old place of business and the future conduct of the business by them under the old name, the' good-will remains with the latter as of course.</p> <p>A trade-mark may be part of the good-will of a firm, and in this case it was part of the good-will of thq appellee’s firm.</p> <p>A person who comes into an existing firm as a partner, and, after remaining there a few years, goes out, leaving the firm to carry on the old line of business under the same title in which it did business both before he came in and during the time he was a partner, does not take with him the right to use the trade-marks of the firm, in the absence of an anr~» ment to that effect.</p> <p>The intentional use of another’s trade-mark is a fraud; and when the excuse is that the owner permitted such use,.that excuse is disposed, of by affirmative action to put a stop to it, and no estoppel arises.</p>