Mr. K. Fenning (professor of retent law at Georgetown University) reports a case of a drug mant-facturer who adopted a trade mark and established it throughout New England. The business grew and panded further west. When it reached Kentucky the manufacturer found that another druggist had edoptéd and used the trademark, identical in svery way. 'The New England' owner did what every other man would do—ke- "utd ' the Kentucky man. He then received a covere shock, because the courts' decided against bini: "The case went New Englander had no right to his mark in any territory in which he bad not used it. The owner having confined his use of the mark "to a territory wholly remote from that in controversy must be held to have taken the risk that some innocent party might in the meantime hit upon the same mark, apply it to goods of similar character and expend money and effort is building up a trade under it."
The Kentucky manufacturer, haying adopted and used the mark when it was not being used by anyone in the neighbourhood had, by that very fact, acquired an inextinguishable right to continue the use of the mark, Obviously, the result of this, as Mr, Fenning says, is that the New England owner of the mark may advertise his goods in any rational advertising medium, but the result will be that anyone calling for the goods by trade-mark in Pitts. burgh or St. Louis will get the goods advertised by the New England owner of the mark; but a man reading the same advertisement in the same magazine and asking for the same goods by the same trademark in Louisville or Lexington, cannot get the advertised goods of the New England advertiser, but must take the goods put out by the Kentucky druggist, because of state protection,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.