103 F. 203 | 3rd Cir. | 1900
This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill of the appellant, complainant below. 93 Fed. 989. The bill charges unfair competition in trade and violation of certain alleged
“The complainant was not entitled to a monopoly in the subject of arctic explorations; nor had it an exclusive right to publish and sell books relating to Nansen’s polar expedition. That subject was open to the world. Nor had the complainant an exclusive right, as against the defendants, to the use of the words ‘The “Fram” Expedition. Nansen in the Frozen World,’ or of any of them. There can be little doubt that Nansen’s exploits served to kindle popular interest in arctic explorations. In fact the record discloses that they were the proximate cause of the publication by the defendants of their book. But this circumstance does not in the least militate against good faith or fair dealing on their part. It appears that months before Nansen began to write an account of the expedition the defendants had determined to publish a book on that and kindred subjects. Nor does the appearance or title of the defendants’ book disclose any intent to indulge in unfair competition with the complainant. Certainly the difference between the two books is obvious to any ordinary customer of such works. * * * There is nothing deceptive in the cover, outside title or title page of the defendants’ book. Those titles, taken in conjunction, are fairly descriptive of the subject matter of the volume. They radically differ from the outside title and title page of the complainant’s book. Comparing the two works, we are unable to perceive that any ordinary customer of such books possessing common intelligence should, in the absence of actual fraud practiced upon him, mistake the one for the other, without gross carelessness on his part.”
If it were true tbat tbe appellees bad practiced fraud or deception in palming off tbeir book as tbe book of tbe appellant an injunction undoubtedly would lie against sucb unfair and fraudulent conduct, but it would by no means follow tbat tbe injunction should be so broad as wholly to suppress tbe publication and sale of a book which the appellees would have a right to put on tbe market by fair and proper means. On tbe evidence, however, we are not satisfied tbat tbe appellees have practiced fraud or deception in tbe sale of tbeir
The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.