« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
a certain day, or that it shall be made as of a certain day. This fixes the liability of persons and property to taxation for the year. There are some inconveniences and inequalities resulting from this, but some regulation of the kind is indispensable. A force of tax officers cannot be kept employed for the year in watching the transfers of property, the movement of persons, and the vicissitudes of business, in order to equalize the charges upon them. Periodical assessments, if they produce injustice in one case, may correct it in the next, and on the whole are likely to be fair. At any rate, they constitute the best regulation the law can establish.”
The view that, if under the statutes of Idaho real estate is exempt from taxation on the second Monday of January of any given year, it does not become subject to taxation during that year, even though transferred to a person in whose hands it is no longer exempt under the law, is the only one which I am able to harmonize with the theory and scheme of taxation as disclosed by. the statutes of Idaho, and it is in accord with the decisions of other courts where similar statutory provisions have been considered. Wildberger v. Shaw, 36 South. 539, 84 Miss. 442; Baltimore v. Jenkins, 53 Atl. 930, 96 Md. 192; Railway Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 49 S. W. 548. Electric Co. v. New Orleans, 14 South. 231, 45 La. Ann. 1475; Martin v. Drake, 41 N. W. 942, 40 Minn. 137; King v. City of Madison, 17 Ind. 48; Long v. Culp, 14 Kan. 412; Swann & Billups v. State, 77 Ala. 545. Indeed, my attention has not been called to any case announcing a different rule.
It follows from the views expressed in the case of Clearwater Timber Co. v. Shoshone County and Others, 155 Fed. 612, and herein set forth, that the prayer of the plaintiff's complaint must be granted.
W. A. GAINES & CO. V. KAHN et al.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D. June 13, 1907.)
1. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES—RIGHT TO TRADE-MARK—"OLD CROW”
“ cording to a secret formula by one James Crow, who was employed as distiller at a distillery in Kentucky, commencing in 1835. After his death in 1855, the manufacture was continued for a time at the same distillery by one who had learned the formula from him. During the latter part of such time, the distillery was leased by complainant's predecessors in business, who employed such person as distiller, and continued to use the names “Crow" and "Old Crow" to designate their product. Later they built a distillery of their own near by, and since that time they and complainant have continued to use the same process and the same name, which has become well known in the trade as designating complainant's goods exclusively. Shortly after complainant's predecessors built their distillery, the original distillery where the Crow whisky was first made was torn down and another built in its place, which has never used the Crow formula nor the name. Held, that complainant was entitled to protection in the exclusive use of the name "Old Crow” as designating its goods.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trade Marks and Trade-Names, 88 29-41.]
2. SAME-FRAUDULENT USE OF NAME.
The fact that defendants prior to the leasing by complainant's predecessors of the distillery where the "Old Crow" whisky was originally made put upon the market a blended whisky of their own make under the name of “P. Crow” and “J. W. Crow,” for the purpose of deceiving purchasers as to its quality and origin, gave them no right to claim such names as a trade-mark, as against complainant.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, $ 76.]
In Equity. Suit for infringement of trade-mark.
DYER, District Judge. The bill in this case is, in substance, as follows: The plaintiff is a Kentucky corporation, engaged in the manufacture and sale of whisky in Woodford county, Ky.; that at the time this suit was commenced Moritz Hellman and Abraham M. Hellman were copartners in the liquor business in the city of St. Louis under the firm name of A. M. Hellman & Co.; that since the original bill in this case was filed Abraham Hellman has died, and the respondent Max Kahn has been duly appointed administrator of his estate.
The complainant claims that it is the sole and exclusive owner of a certain trade-mark for whisky, consisting of the words "Old Crow," and that this mark has been used by it and its predecessors in business for about 40 years, and that this mark has been applied by it and its predecessors to packages by marking, branding, stamping, and labeling. It is further averred in the bill that the plaintiff corporation is the successor in business of W. A. Gaines & Co., copartnership, and that W. A. Gaines & Co. was the successor of Gaines, Berry & Co., a copartnership. It is further charged that in the year 1867 Gaines, Berry & Co. adopted and commercially applied the words “Old Crow" as a trade-mark for whisky distilled by them; that the name was so used by them until 1870, when they were succeeded in business by W. A. Gaines & Co., to whom the same with all other assets were transferred; that the firm of W. A. Gaines & Co. (the copartnership) continued the use in the same way of the mark until 1887, when they were succeeded by the complainant corporation; that after this succession the complainant continued to use and is now using the mark in the same way as its predecessor. It is further averred in the bill that in the year 1835 one James Crow became domiciled upon Glenn's Creek, in Woodford county, Ky., and there began the manufacture of a whisky of superior excellence and quality, which became designated about that time as “Crow” or “Old Crow”; that James Crow was continually from 1835 to the time of his death in 1855 engaged in the distillation of said whisky which was known and designated as “Crow” or “Old Crow” whisky, and that during his lifetime this whisky acquired a wide and extensive sale and reputation; that upon the death of the said James Crow there was upon the market a considerable quantity of that kind of whisky, and that it was known commercially and sold and dealt in continuously by various persons until the year 1867, when the copartnership of Gaines, Berry & Co. began the production of
whisky, using the same process and material that had theretofore been used by James Crow, and conducting the distillation of whisky upon Glenn's Creek, in Woodford county, Ky.; that from the time of the death of Crow until 1857 there was no whisky produced upon the said Glenn's Creek or elsewhere to which the said words “Crow” or “Old Crow” were applied as a trade-mark.
It is further stated in the bill that the words “Crow" or "Old Crow" had been left open for adoption, by the death of the said James Crow and the cessation of the distillation of the whisky designated by the said words, so that the same were lawfully appropriated and used by Gaines, Berry & Co. in the year 1867. It is further averred in the bill that from the time when the process of making of said whisky was first devised and put into use by Crow in 1835 down to the present time the words "Old Crow” have been applied continuously to the whisky produced by the said process, and to no other whisky whatsoever, and that the distillation and production of said whisky made by said process has always been made at Glenn's Creek, Woodford county, Ky., and in no other place in the United States, or anywhere else in the world; that the words “Old Crow" have continuously since the year 1835 down to the present time indicated to the public and particularly to all consumers of and dealers in whisky throughout the world that the whisky to which they were applied was made by the said process devised and invented by the said James Crow, and to no other whisky whatsoever; that the words “oid Crow” have continually since the year 1835 down to the present time indicated to the public and particularly to consumers of and dealers in whisky throughout the world that the whisky to which these words were applied is and was distilled at Glenn's Creek, Woodford county, Ky. It is further averred that the said whisky to which the words “Old Crow” are applied is sold at a higher price than any other whisky of equal age produced in the United States, and this by reason of its uniform excellence and the skill and care devoted by complainants to the selection of the materials used, and to the process of distillation, together with the natural advantages of the locality in which the complainant's distillery is situated. It is further averred in the bill that the complainant and its predecessors have expended large sums of money in and about the advertising of said whisky throughout the United States. It is further averred that the said mark "Old Crow" is a lawful and valid subsisting trade-mark, and that complainant has been universally recognized as the sole and exclusive owner thereof; that complainants have, by reason of the uniform excellence of the whisky distilled and sold by them under the trade-mark “Old Crow,” established a large and continuously increasing trade and demand for said whisky, so distinguished by said trade-mark. It is then charged that the rights of the complainant being well known, the defendants have unlawfully disregarded the same, and have from the 1st of January, 1903, and thence continuously and from day to day until the filing of the bill of complaint herein made or caused to be made, sold or caused to be sold in the city of St. Louis, and state of Missouri, and elsewhere, a compounded liquor or liquid to which they applied the trade-mark "Old Crow," and that this was done against the consent of the complainants and in violation of their trade-mark rights. It is further averred that, by the fraudulent acts of the defendants, they have sold a spurious compounded liquor as and for complainant's whisky, and have diverted to themselves trade to which the complainant was entitled, and which it would have otherwise received; that the whisky so sold by the respondents was purchased by the public and the consumers thereof in the false belief that it was complainant's whisky; and that, by reason of the inferior quality of the liquor so sold by respondents, the reputation of complainant's whisky has been greatly damaged. It is further claimed that the said unlawful and wrongful acts of the respondents constitute unfair competition in trade; that the said acts are now continued and are imperiling and jeopardizing the complainant's established trade and good will.
The answer of the defendants makes specific denials of each and every allegation in the complainant's bill contained, except that they admit that at the time of the filing the bill of complaint Moritz Hellman and the late Abraham M. Hellman were copartners doing business under the name and style of A. M. Hellman & Co., and that said Abraham M. Hellman is dead and Max Kahn has been appointed his administrator.
The respondents in their answer affirmatively set up and state that in 1863 the firm of I. & L. M. Hellman, a copartnership composed of Isaac and Louis M. Hellman, were the predecessors in business of Moritz Hellman, and the late Abraham M. Hellman; that they did a general wholesale liquor business in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and made and produced according to their own formula a blended whisky, which said firm of I. & L. M. Hellman & Co. designated as “Crow" or "Old Crow” whisky, and branded and stamped upon barrels, kegs, boxes, and bottles containing the said whisky the figure of a crow and the words “Crow," "Old Crow,” and “Celebrated Old Crow," and "J. W. Crow's Bourbon,” together with the firm name and the word “Hellman’s," and continuously sold and dealt in whisky in packages so stamped, branded, and labeled, and continuously designated the said whisky to the trade by the said names and each of them, until the year 1867, when Isaac Hellman, one of the members of the firm of I. & L. M. Hellman, departed this life; that, after the death of Isaac Hellman, Louis M. Hellman acquired all the rights and property of said Isaac Hellman in the firm of I. & L. M. Hellman, including the right to make and produce whisky according to the formula of said firm and sell the same, and to use and apply to such whisky the said names of “Crow," "Old Crow,” and “Celebrated Old Crow," and "J. W. Crow's Bourbon,” together with the brands, labels, marks, and figures used in connection therewith.
It is claimed by the respondents that they and their predecessors are rightfully entitled to the use of the said words “Crow," "Old Crow,” “Celebrated Old Crow," and "J. W. Crow's Bourbon," and the figure of a crow, as a trade-mark for and upon the whisky made and produced by them, and that this was well known to the complainant herein ever since the year 1896, and acquiesced in by the complainant since that time. The respondents then aver that the whisky produced by the complainant and sold by it under the firm name of "Crow," "old Crow," and represented by them to be whisky of superior excellence, is in point of fact a whisky containing a large and dangerous percentage of fusel oil, a deadly poison, and a large percentage of other dangerous and deleterious impurities, and that the same is unwholesome and impure, and that the same has not been subjected to any process of rectification, blending, or vatting for the purpose of removing such dangerous and deleterious impurities, and that in representing said whisky to be pure and of superior excellence the complainant is guilty of fraud upon
the public, and especially upon purchasers and consumers of whisky.
The replication to this answer on the part of the complainant is a general denial.
Respondents to the bill in this cause have filed a cross-bill, in which they themselves are complainants and the W. A. Gaines & Co. (corporation) is made respondent. In this cross-bill the averments are along the lines marked out in their answer to the original bill in this cause. In this cross-bill complainants ask for affirmative relief against the corporation, W. A. Gaines & Co. There is an answer filed to this cross-bill by W. A. Gaines & Co., and a replication to the answer by Hellman and Kahn. The bill and cross-bill practically present the same question.
The questions for my consideration have been in a great measure passed upon by courts of competent jurisdiction in the states of Missouri and New York.
In the Missouri case the facts relied on by the complainant are substantially the same as those appearing in the record now before the court. The recital of the facts by Judge Smith of the Kansas City Court of Appeals I find to be substantially the facts disclosed in the testimony of the witnesses for the complainant here. Judge Smith, in his recital of the facts in the case before him, says:
"It is disclosed by the evidence that one James Crow, a distiller, had a secret formula for the making of whisky. He was employed in 1833 by Oscar Pepper, the owner and operator of a distillery, for whom he made whisky according to his formula until 1855. He died a year later. The whisky made by him was of excellent quality. One Mitchell, who had worked with Crow and had learned his formula, took Crow's place, and continued to make whisky at the Pepper distillery until the latter's death in 1865. After the death of Pepper one Edwards leased the distillery, and carried it on for about a year. In February, 1867, Gaines, Berry & Co. leased it and carried it on until July, 1869. In the last-named year this copartnership built and moved into a new distillery, located about three miles away from the Oscar Pepper distillery. From 1869 to 1871 the latter was not operated. In 1870 the copartnership was succeeded by that of W. A. Gaines & Co., which later in 1887 was succeeded by the plaintiff. When Gaines, Berry & Co. leased the Pepper distillery, they employed Mitchell, already referred to as Crow's pupil, as their distiller, and he remained in their employment and that of their immediate successor, W. A. Gaines & Co., until 1872, and during all that time the whisky output of the distillery of these firms was made according to the Crow formula. One Van Johnson, who worked with Mitchell for several years, succeeded Mitchell as distiller in the employment of W. A. Gaines & Co., and used the Crow formula in the production of whisky by the latter and its successor, the plaintiff', so that the Crow formula has been continuously used in the production of whisky by the several parties named for nearly three-quarters of a century. It is true that, after the expiration