L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914)

Name: L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914) - Syllabus
Author: U.S. Supreme Court

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 235 U.S. 81, click here.

L. E. Waterman Company v. Modern Pen Company

Nos. 54

, 72

Argued November 10, 1914
Decided November 30, 1914
235 U.S. 88

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

When the use of his own name upon his goods by a later competitor will and does lead the public to understand that such goods are the product of a concern already established and well known under that name, and when the profit of the confusion is known to, and, if that be material, is intended by the later man, the law will require him to take reasonable precautions to prevent the mistake. Herring-Hall Marvin Co. v. Hall’s Safe Co., 208 U.S. 554.

There is no distinction between corporations and natural persons in the above principle, which is one to prevent a fraud.

All the protection which a manufacturer is entitled to get against a later person of the same name manufacturing similar goods is to require the later person to so use his name in marking his goods that they cannot be confused with the earlier manufacturer, and this though one of the motive of the later person was to obtain an advantage by the use of his own name.

While the transfer of a person’s name without any business may not be enough to entitle the transferee to prevent others from using the name, it still is a license that may be sufficient to put the licensee on the footing of the licensor against another party of the same name.

Two courts below having upheld arrangements as effective in giving a licensee of the right to use a name the same protection which the licensor would have had as against another party of the same name, this Court will not go into any consideration of the facts on which such arrangement was based.

197 F. 534, 536, affirmed on cross-appeals with cost equally divided between both parties.

The facts, which involve the use of the name Waterman in connection with the manufacture and sale of fountain pens, are stated in the opinion.

Contents:

Related Resources

None available for this document.

Download Options

Title: L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914)

Select an option:

*Note: A download may not start for up to 60 seconds.

Email Options

Title: L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914)

Select an option:

Email addres:

*Note: It may take up to 60 seconds for for the email to be generated.

Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914) in 235 U.S. 88 235 U.S. 89–235 U.S. 93. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AJPLRWIAPFMBI69.

MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914), in 235 U.S. 88, pp. 235 U.S. 89–235 U.S. 93. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AJPLRWIAPFMBI69.

Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914). cited in 1914, 235 U.S. 88, pp.235 U.S. 89–235 U.S. 93. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AJPLRWIAPFMBI69.

General Summary