530 FEDERAL EBPOBTEE. �whetlier I took up one of Exhibit A, (theEast ludia wrapper,) or sent them one whea I made the change ; that is, wiiether I took up a package like Exhibit A, or took up a label or sent them one." �It is clearly proved that in the latter part of 1876 the Waterbury Printing Company made for the defendant as near an imitation of the plaintiff's wrapper and label as was possi- ble, with the necessary alteration of names, and that the Dixon trade-mark was fumished by some one to the printing Company for that purpose. Indeed, it is manifest from a comparison of the two wrappers that one was copied from the other. There is not so close a resemblance between the "East India" and the Dixon wrapper as there is between the latter and the wrapper of the, New England Lead Works. The "directions" are entirely different. But it is apparent, from reading the descriptions of the polish whioh are printed on each wrapper, that the two had but one author ; they are almost identical. Did Dixon copy from Benham, or did Benham copy from Dixon ? It is sufficiently established that Dixon commenced the use of his wrapper as early as in 1848. Benham does not claim to have commenced until 1853. I have no doubt that the mind and the hand which prepared the Benham wrapper for the press in 1853 used the Dixon wrapper as a pattern, and that there was a conscious attempt to imitate the form in whioh the successful article had been presented to the public. It did not appear that the plaintiff was chargeable with laches af ter it discovered the defendant's wrappers and labels. �Let there be a decree for an injunction against the use or imitation, colorable or otherwise, of the plaintiff's wrappers, labels, or trade-mark, and for au accounting. ����
