SINGER MANUF'G 00. V. 8TANAGB. 281 �bitable rightto manufacture and sell the "Singer" machines — that is, machines known as such in the market- — so far as their mechanism is conoerned, they had no right to advertise or sell them by their right names, with or without a prefix. How is it that the plaintiff corporation acquired a monopoly of the name, whereby it could exclude, after the expiration of the patent, ail others from making or vending the machines under the only name known to the public ? �A review of the many cases cited leads to the following con- clusions : �First. That when a patented article is known in the market by any specifie designation, wbether of the name of the pat- entee or otherwise, every person, at the expiration of the pat- ent, has a right to manufacture and vend the same under the designation thereof by whioh it was known to the public. �Second. That the original patentee or his assignees have no right to the exclusive use of said designation as a trade- mark. Their rights were. under the patent, and expired with it. �Third. If a corporation or person wished to establish a ■trade-mark or name, indicative of its own special manufac- ture of such a machine or produot, the right must grow up, just as ail other rights of the kind are established — by use and acquiescence. Thus, as every one at the expiration of the patent had a clear right to manufacture and vend what was known as the "Singer" sewing-machine, the plaintiff •could acquire no exclusive right to the name "Singer," but could by proper trade-mark appropriate to itself names or devices indicating its own manufacture of such machines. �Fourth. The plaintiff did adopt special names and devices to indicate what it put on the market as its manufacture, viz., "The Singer Manufacturiug Company," imprinted on the shield and arm of the machine, etc. The defendant placed on its shield and arm the words, "The Henry Stew- art's Manufacturing Co.," withunother device. Now, as each corporation had an equal right to make and vend that class of machines known in the market as "Singer" machines, and as the defendant used neither the name nor device of the ��� �
