808
REPORTS OF pATENT, DESIGN,
·[Dec.·i6, 1908'-'
In the Matter oj theApplication. of the NationalStarchOompany
for the Registration 'of a Trade Mark (" Oswego "). '
does with every, other case when .iteotnes before him, but I cannot deny 'that
it .has been the, practice togive the Registraf' costs.
, WARRINGTON: J.-l think it, is, onlyreaso~able that. it ,shoUld be so. , Yon
could not have very well. got .this, Order.~x parte. I do not,propos,eto.,de.clare
that the' Registrar' ought to register the mark. I only propose to declare' that, 5
following .thewords of Section 9, the word' " Oswego" ought to be-deemed to
be a distinctive mark. .That is the only question I have before me.
IN THE ' COUR~ OF. SESSION, IN, SCOTLAND~-BILL OHA}JBER.
Be/ore LORD GVTHl~IE. '
, June 18th and 'July 4th, 1908.
RESAR'1'U~;. COMPAN¥
v.
10)
SARTOnRESARTUS COMPANY.
"Trade name.~lnterim interdict•
. The Resartns Company, had used that name' for three, years in the' business "~I
clean,ing, clothes in ·Edino'ttrgh. A Oompany. ~tarted,.
the .eame bueiness 'in Edinburgh 'under the name of the Sartor .Resartus 15,
Company; tl'he· Resartus . Company . brought. ana~tion oj$UspensiOnarul'
interdiqt' ..~g~in~t'them. Interim' interdict having been mooed forin: the Bill'
OhamfJe't' was .granted. The Bespondentethereafter.consented to the interdict
being'rnade .final.
rep.a~ring, pressing,'and
'This'was' an ,action ," ofsuspensionand interdict ,by the ,Resa'rtus Oompanll<2Q
against the Sartor ResartusOompa1ty to prevent them from tradingunder that ."
name..'. The Complainers,' 'who had been in business in Edinburgh' for-three
years, made a specialty of repairing,. cleaning, and pressing gentlemen's clothes,
and averred that they were the first firm in Scotland to do so. The Respondents
took up the same'businessin Edinburgh, and advertised largely by circulars under "25. '
the name ofthe Sartor Resartus Oompany . . These circulars were' sent tomany'~
of, the Complainers' customers. The Complainers applied' for, interdict, On
the i 1 8 t h ' of June 1908 the question whether interim interdict should be granted
:was"argued in t4e:-Bill· Ohamber before Lord GUTHRIE.. .
Vol. XXV., No. 27.]
809
AND TRADE MARK CASES.
Besartue Oompany v, Sartor Resarlus Oompany.
Morton (instructed by Davidson and Macnaughton S.S.C.) appeared for the
Complainers; Steedman (instructed by Caieand Macrae W.S . ) appeared for
the Respondents.
Morton.-The name "Resartus" had in the course of three years become
5 associated in the minds of the public with the Complainers' business. The
name "Sartor Resartus" resembled it so closely as to be likely, and indeed
certain, to deceive the public. In fact the Complainers could instantly show
that confusion between the names had actually occurred- by producing at the
Bar a reply post-card sent "out by the Respondentsand returned to the Com10 plainers, the address having been altered by a customer plainly in the belief
that the two Companies were the same. As the Respondents had only haena
fewweeks in business they could suffer no material loss by interdict. They
had not yet builtup anyreputation of their own in connection with the' name
" Sartor Resartus."
15 Steedman for the Respondents.-The word "Sartor" clearly differentiated
the two Companies, . The word "Resartus" was a descriptive term in so far
as it wasassociated -by the public with the repair of clothes. It was this that
suggested it to the Respondents, who were careful so to ·use it that there
could be no confusionbetween their businessand that of theOomplalners.
20
'I'he LORD ORD~NARY on theIbth of June 1908 granted interim interdict; and
passed the Note from the Bill Chamber to the Court of Session.
On the 4th of July, .the Respondents consenting, the interim interdict was
made final.
Before
TilE SOLICITOR-GENERAL.
April 9th, 1908.
25
IN
THB
MATTER OF THE
ApPLICATION
FOR
A PATENT ,BY
FnIED. KRUPP· AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT' GERMANIAWERFT.
Opposition' to grant of Patent on the ground that. the invention had been
patented on applications 01prior date.
30
K. applied fora Patent for" Improvements' i1rt .ships. or other vessel.' for
loose ca'l'goes." The grant lVCtS opposed by M~ on, the .ground that
"ca1~rying
the-inven,ti.on ha4 lieen [J!lJten,teaoncertainprio~
appl~catiorts. •. 1'heO~mptrolrer.