32 F. 153 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts | 1887
The complainants by their bill claim, as against the defendant, the exclusive use of the word “Montserrat,” as a designation for lime juice. Montserrat is the name of a small island in the West Indies, and the complainants, who reside in Liverpool, are the consignees of the Montserrat Company, Limited, a corporation having large plantations on the island. The defendant lives in Boston, and is a dealer in lemon and lime-fruit juice. Formerly he did business as Von Laer & Co., or as the Von Laer Fruit-Juice Co. It appears that on labels bearing the name Von Laer & Co., the lime juice was designated as imported from Montserrat. It is not shown that this lime juice was not in fact imported from Montserrat. On the contrary, the evidence is that the defendant, or Von Laer & Co., bought lime juice on the island, and had it shipped to this country. The fact that the Montserrat Company may have acquired a high reputation for the purity and strength of their article, and that the importation of Von Laer & Co. may have been inferior in quality, can make no difference, unless the defendant, by improper means and devices, has sought to make the public believe that he was selling the article made by the Montserrat Company. In the absence of fraud the complainants cannot enjoin the defendant from the use of a geographical name. This vras settled in the case of Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, where the court refused to enjoin the defendant against calling their coal “Lackawanna Coal,” and where it was held that no one can apply the name of a district of country to a well-known article of commerce, and obtain thereby such an exclusive right to the application as to prevent others inhabiting the district, or dealing in similar articles coming from the district, from truthfully using the same designation. The fact that such use by another person may cause the public to make a mistake as to the origin or ownership of the product can make no difference, if it is true in its application to the goods of one as to the other. Purchasers may be mistaken, but they are not deceived by false representation, and equity will not enjoin against telling the truth. It is manifest, then, that to entitle the complainants to any of the relief sought by this bill, some fraud must be proved.
The complainants charge the defendant with fraud in two respects: (1) Imitation of their package as a whole; (2) the use of bottles having their names moulded in them. A comparison of the labels will, I think, show that the public could not be misled into mistaking the defendant’s article for the complainants’. Aside from a resemblance in color, and from the use of. the words “Montserrat Lime-Fruit Juice,” which the defendant had a right to use, there is nothing on .defendant’s label which resembles that of the Montserrat Company. Stress is laid upon the fact that the bottles are alike, but, bearing in mind that the evidence discloses that most lime-juice bottles are quite similar in size and design, I do not deem this very important. There is one thing, how
Decree for complainants.
