SINGES MANUF'g CO. V. STANAGB. 279 �Singer Manuf'o Co. v. Stanagb. (Circuit Court, E. V. Missouri. March, 1881.) �1. Tbade-Makk— Patentbd Article— Specific Dbbignatioii. �Where a word indicates a patented machine of peculiar mechanigm, such Word cannot be protected as a trade-mark upon the expiration of the patent. �2. Same—" Singer " Machine. �Certain patented sewing macliines were known as the " Singer " machines. Hdd, that the word "Singer" was net a trade-mark, and became common property upon the expiration of the patent. �In Equity. �Taylor e Pollard, for plaintiflF. �Marshall e Barclay, for defendant. �Tkeat, D. J. This is a suit for an alleged violation of plaintiff's trade-mark. It seems that the plaintiff has pur-, fiaed its controversy on both sides of the Atlantic, generally with success. The decisions of the foreign and American courts have been cited and examined. While reference is made in many of them to actual or supposed patents, issued and expired, no one of said cases, except that by Judge Drummond, states with directness what should be the turn- ing point in the controversy. The case of the plaintiff against WUson (3 Appeal Cases, 376) turned more on ques- tions of practice than on the rules by which the rights of the parties were to be ultimately determined. That case and others in England, and the great number of cases in Ameri- can courts, (notably, Manufg Go. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51,) ought to make clear the rules controlling this litigatiop. It would be tedious and unprofitable to review the many author- ities cited. In the case from the English house of lords, (supra,) and in the case {supra) from the United States su- preme court, there were differing opinions o» the merits. Each of the many cases cited has its distinctive pecularities, and, while ail courts agree that property interests in trade.- marks should be protected, there is a strange diversity of reasoning as to the true basis on which st^ch interests should rest. ; , . ■ ��� �
