"Toothache Gum,' "Traveler's," "Trophy," "Tycoon," "Tucker Spring," 5-Greene, Tweed & Co. v. Manufacturers' Belt Hook Co., 158 Fed. Rep. 640. 6-Bolander v. Peterson, 136 Ill. 215. 7-Wellman & Dwire Tob. Co. v. Ware Tob. Works, 46 Fed. Rep. 289. 8-Ex parte Thompson, Derby & Co., 16 Off. Gaz. 137. 9 Seeger Refrigerator Co. V. White Enamel Refrigerator Co., 178 Fed. Rep. 567. 10-New Iberia Extract of Tabasco Pepper Co. v. E. McIlhenny's Son, 61 So. Rep. 131; 132 La. 149; following the decision of the Court of Appeals, D. C., in McIlhenny v. New Iberia Extract of Tabasco Pepper Co., 34 App. D. C. 430. See also McIlhenny Co. v. Trappey, 277 Fed. Rep. 615; C. A. D. C. 11-Colgan v. Danheiser, 35 Fed. Rep. 150. 12-In re Dick & Co., 9 Off. Gaz. 538. scythe-sockets.8 refrigerators.9 pepper sauce. 10 chewing-gum.11 drugs. 12 cotton wadding.13 medicines, 14 watches. 15 wine. 16 13-Thermogene Co. v. Thermozine Co., 225 Fed. Rep. 446. 14-Thompson v. Winchester, 36 Mass. 214. 15-Ex parte Strasburger & Co., 20 Off. Gaz. 155. 16-Italian Swiss Colony Co. v. Italian Vineyard Co., 158 Cal. 252; 110 Pac. Rep. 913. 17-Devlin v. McLeod, 135 Fed. Rep. 164; Devlin v. Peck, 135 Fed. Rep. 167. 18-Traveler's Insurance Machine Co. v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 134 S. W. Rep. 877; 142 Ky. 523; judg ment modified in 136 S. W. Rep. 154; 143 Ky. 216. 19-In re Meyer Bros. Coffee & Spice Co., 38 App. D. C. 520. 20-Corbin v. Gould, 133 U. S. 308; 33 L. Ed. 611. 21-Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Boyington, 9 Off. Gaz. 455, Fed. Case No. 14,229. 22-American Tobacco Co. V. Globe Tobacco Co., 193 Fed. Rep. 1015. 23-Cady v. Schultz, 19 R. I. 193; 61 Am. St. Rep. 763. 24-Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Dreadnaught Tire & Rubber Co., 225 Fed. Rep. 138. 25-Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Dreadnaught Tire & Rubber Co., 225 Fed. Rep. 138; affirmed, Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Dreadnaught Tire & Rubber Co., 229 Fed. Rep. 560 (C. C. A. 3). 26—In re Horsburgh, 53 L. J. Ch. 237. 27-Sternberg Mfg. Co. v. Miller, Du Brul & Peters Mfg. Co., 88 C. C. A. 398; 161 Fed. Rep. 318 (C. C. A. 8). 28-Wotherspoon v. Gray, Ct. Sess. Cas. (3rd ser.) 2, 38. 29 Noel v. Ellis, 89 Fed. Rep. 978-981. 30-Noel v. Ellis, 89 Fed. Rep. 978-981. Texas Siftings 31-Montgomerie v. Donald, Ct. Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 11,506. 32-Merriam V. Pub. Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 944-947. 33-Marvel Co. v. Pearl, 133 Fed. Rep. 160, 162; 66 C. C. A. 226. 34-Bulte v. Iglehart Bros., 137 Fed. Rep. 492; 70 C. C. A. 76. 35-Mississippi Wire Glass Co. v. Continuous Glass Press Co., 81 Atl. Rep. 374; 79 N. J. Eq. 277. 36-Towle v. Spear, 7 Penn. L. J. 176; Cox, Am. Tr. Cas. 67; Seb. 90. 37-Lea v. Deakin, 11 Biss. 23, Fed. Cas. No. 8,154; Lea v. Wolff, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 1; 46 How. Pr. 157; Seb. 407; Lea v. Millar, Seton (4th Ed.), 242; Seb. 513. 38-Er parte Yale & Towne Mfg. Co.. 81 Off. Gaz. 801. § 48. Examples of valid trademarks, fancy, arbitrary or distinctive words. The following instances are illustrative of fancy, arbitrary or distinctive words, which have been either held properly protected against unfair competition, or their use upheld as trademarks in application to the classes of merchandise in connection with which the words have respectively been used. In some cases the question of validity was not raised, nor are all of them to be upheld as technical trademarks. These illustrations are given in their alphabetical order to facilitate reference. 39-Ex parte Weil, 83 Off. Gaz. 1802. 40-Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co. v. Utah Independent Telephone Co., 88 Pac. Rep. 26; 31 Utah, 377. 41-Garnier v. Rossman, 195 Fed. Rep. 175; affirmed, Rossmann v. Garnier, 211 Fed. Rep. 401; 128 C. C. A. 73 (C. C. A. 8). 43-Ainsworth v. Walmesley, 44 L. R. 1 Eq. 518. 44-Lauferty v. Wheeler, 11 Abb. N. C. 220; 11 Daly, 194; 63 How. Pr. 488. 45-Dr. Peter H. Fahrney & Sons Co. v. Ruminer, 153 Fed. Rep. 735; 82 C. C. A. 621 (C. C. A. 7). shoes. 48 shoes, 49 licorice.50 46-Reeder v. Brodt, 6 Ohio Dec. 248; 4 Ohio N. P. 265. 47-Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 651-653. 48-Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U. S. 251; 60 L. Ed. -. 49-Joseph Banigan Rubber Co. v. Bloomingdale, 89 Off. Gaz. 1670. 50-McAndrew v. Bassett, 4 DeG. J. & S. 380; 33 L. J. Ch. 566; 10 Jur. N. S. 550; 10 L. T. N. S. 442; 12 W. R. 777; 4 N. R. 123; Cox, 669. Anatolia is a geographical name, but its use here was protected on the theory of unfair competition. cosmetic.66 numbering machines.67 59-W. R. Lynn Shoe Co. v. Auburn-Lynn Shoe Co., 62 Atl. Rep. 499; 100 Me. 461. 60-Walter Baker & Co. v. Delapenha, 160 Fed. Rep. 746. 61-Van Hoboken v. Mohns & Kaltenbach, 112 Fed. Rep. 528. 62-Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical and Mfg. Co., 80 Fed. Rep. 105; 49 U. S. App. 709; 25 C. C. A. 314. 63-Foster v. Blood Balm Co., 77 Ga. 216, 3 S. E. Rep. 284. 64-Hall v.. Barrows, 4 DeG. J. & S. 150; Cox, 668. 65-Talbot v. Webley, 3 R. P. C. 276; Cartmell, 324. 66-Fetridge v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr. 156. 67-Bates Mfg. Co. v. Bates Numbering Machine Co., 172 Fed. Rep. 892, 178 Fed. Rep. 681; 102 C. C A. 181. 68-United Lace & Braid Mfg. Co. v. Barthels Mfg. Co., 221 Fed. Rep. 456. 69-Gage v. Canada Publ. Co., 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 306; 6 Ont. Rep. 68; 11 Ont. App. 402. 70-In re Charles Narcisse Ferre, Cert. No. 8939. 71-Societe Anonyme v. Western Distilling Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 416; Societe Anonyme de la Distillerie de la Benedictine v. Micalovitch, Fletcher & Co., 36 Alb. Law J. 364; A. Bauer & Co. v. Distillerie de la Liqueur Benedictine, 56 C. C. A. 480; 120 Fed. Rep. 74. 72-Ball v. Broadway Bazaar, 87 N. E. Rep. 674; 194 N. Y. 429, reversing 106 N. Y. S. 249; 121 App. Div. 546. 73-New York Mackintosh Co. v. Flam, 198 Fed. Rep. 571. 74-Dunbar v. Glenn, 42 Wis. 118; Seb. 529. medicine. 79 water.80 medicine.81 whiskey.82 pomade.83 75-Billiken Co. v. Baker & Bennet Co., 174 Fed. Rep. 829. 76-Messerole v. Tynberg, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 10; 36 How. Pr. 14; Cox, 479; S.D. 300. 77-Levy v. Waitt, 56 Fed. Rep. 1016. 78-Euff v. Wallace (N. J. Ch.), 93 Atl. Rep. 702. 79-Fulton v. Sellers, 4 Brewst. 42; Cox, Manual, Case No. 279. 80-Northcutt v. Turney, 101 Ky. 314; 41 S. W. Rep. 21; Parkland Hill Blue Lick Water Co. v. Hawkins, 26 S. W. Rep. 389; 95 Ky. 502; 16 Ky. Law Rep. 210; 44 Am. St. Rep. 254. 81-Funke v. Dreyfus, 34 La. Ann. 80; 44 Am. Rep. 413. 82-Bonnie & Co. v. Bonnie Bros. (Ky.), 169 S. W. Rep. 871. 83-Lockwood v. Bostwick, 2 Daly, 521. |