Baglin v. Cusenier
221 U.S. 580 (1911)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Baglin v. Cusenier, 221 U.S. 580 (1911)

Baglin v. Cusenier

No. 99

Argued March 14, 15, 1911

Decided May 29, 1911

221 U.S. 580

Syllabus

While names which are merely geographical cannot be exclusively appropriated as trademarks, a geographical name which for a long period has referred exclusively to a product made at the place and not to the place itself may properly be used as a trademark, and so held that the word "Chartreuse," as used by the Carthusian Monks in connection with the liqueur manufactured by them at Grande Chartreuse, France, before their removal to Spain, was a validly registered trademark in this country.

Page 221 U. S. 581

The law of a foreign country has no extraterritorial effect to detach a trademark validly registered in this country from the product to which it is attached.

Nonuser of a trademark, or the use of new devices, does not afford a basis for the penalty of loss of right thereto by abandonment; abandonment will not be inferred in the absence of intent, and a finding of intent must be supported by adequate facts.

While one may use the name of the place where he manufactures an article in order to show where it is manufactured, and may state all the facts in regard to his succession, under the law of a foreign country, to property of parties formerly manufacturing an article similar in many respects, he cannot, in this country, use the name of the place to designate the article if that name has been validly registered as a trademark here, and so held that the liquidator appointed in France of the property of the Carthusian Monks could not, in this country, use the word "Chartreuse" to designate the liqueur manufactured by him at Grande Chartreuse, the Carthusian Monks having validly registered that name in the United States as a trademark of the liqueur manufactured by them.

A validly registered trademark cannot be used by anyone other than the owner, even with words explaining that the article to which it is attached is not manufactured by the owner of the trademark.

Where the Circuit Court has sustained the trademark, but the circuit court of appeals has suggested a form of label that the defendant might use, defendant should not be punished for contempt for using such a form.

The facts, which involve the validity of the word "Chartreuse" as a trademark and other questions in regard to the ownership thereof and the sale of cordials under that name, are stated in the opinion.

Page 221 U. S. 586

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.