A circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction over
suits for the violation of a trademark if the plaintiff and
defendant are citizens of the same state and the bill fails to
allege that the trademark in controversy was used on goods intended
to be transported to a foreign country.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
It was stipulated in the circuit court that this cause should
abide the event of Menendez v. Holt, ante, 128 U. S. 514
just decided, and the same decree in favor of complainants was
therefore rendered in this as in that case. But it is now assigned
for error that as defendant and complainants below were citizens of
the same state, and the bill did not allege that the trademark in
controversy was "used on goods intended to be transported to a
foreign country," Act of March 3, 1881, c. 138, § 11, 21 Stat. 502,
the circuit court had no jurisdiction and the decree must be
reversed for that reason. The objection is well taken, and the
decree is accordingly