The right to individual appropriation, once lost, is gone
forever.
Where a geographic or family name becomes the name for a natural
water coming from a more or less extensive district, all are free
to try to imitate it, and the owners of one of such natural springs
cannot prevent the sale of an artificial water as being similar to
that of the natural spring where there is no attempt to deceive the
public as to its being artificial.
Hunyadi is now in effect a geographical expression, and the
owners of the Hunyadi Janos Springs cannot prevent the sale of
artificial Hunyadi water where there is no deception of the public
as to its being an imitation.
157 F. 745 affirmed.
Page 216 U. S. 376
The facts, which involve the right of the owners of the Hunyadi
Janos Springs to enjoin the sale of artificial Hunyadi water, are
stated in the opinion.
Page 216 U. S. 379
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner is the owner of wells in Budapest from which
comes the water known throughout the world by the arbitrary name,
"Hunyadi Janos," given to it by her husband. The
Page 216 U. S. 380
respondents make a bitter water in Cincinnati, and label it "W.
T. Wagner's Sons Carbonated Artificial Hunyadi, Conforming to
Fresenius Analysis of Hunyadi Janos Springs." Formerly they for a
time labeled it "W. T. Wagner's Sons Artificial Hunyadi Janos. Ofen
Bitter Water. Highly Aerated," but this label had been given up
before the bill was brought. The petitioner seeks an injunction
against the use of either "Hunyadi Janos" or "Hunyadi" on any water
not coming from her wells. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, in a more or less similar case, granted an
injunction against the use of the word "Hunyadi."
Thackeray v.
Saxlehner, 125 F. 911. In the present suit, the circuit court
and the circuit court of appeals, treating the right of the
petitioners to "Hunyadi Janos" as admitted, refused an injunction
against the use of "Hunyadi," and, finding that no unfair
competition was shown, dismissed the bill. 157 F. 745. A writ of
certiorari was allowed by this Court.
We see no reason for disturbing the finding of the courts below,
that there was no unfair competition and no fraud. The real intent
of the plaintiff's bill, it seems to us, is to extend the monopoly
of such trademark or tradename as she may have to a monopoly of her
type of bitter water, by preventing manufacturers from telling the
public in a way that will be understood, what they are copying and
trying to sell. But the plaintiff has no patent for the water, and
the defendants have a right to reproduce it as nearly as they can.
They have a right to tell the public what they are doing, and to
get whatever share they can in the popularity of the water by
advertising that they are trying to make the same article, and
think that they succeed. If they do not convey, but, on the
contrary, exclude, the notion that they are selling the plaintiff's
goods, it is a strong proposition that, when the article has a well
known name, they have not the right to explain by that name what
they imitate. By doing so, they are not trying to get the goodwill
of the name, but the goodwill
Page 216 U. S. 381
of the goods.
See Flagg Mfg. Co. v. Holway, 178 Mass.
83, 91;
Chadwick v. Covell, 151 Mass.190, 191. Although
the application is different, the principle seems to be similar to
the rule that, when a patent has expired, descriptive words or even
an arbitrary or personal name by which it has become known may be
used if sufficient precautions are taken to prevent the public from
being deceived.
See Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June
Manufacturing Co., 163 U. S. 169.
The plaintiff says that no one can succeed in imitating a
natural water. But all are free to try. In the absence of some
fraud injurious to the plaintiff, it would be going far under any
circumstances to allow her to prevent advertising "Artificial
Hunyadi." But it is enough to say that, under the decision in
Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U. S.
19,
179 U. S. 36,
the defendants may do so in this case. In that decision it was said
that "Hunyadi," as applied to similar water, had been public
property in Hungary, and therefore had become so here, and that a
later change there would not work a corresponding change in the
United States. "The right to individual appropriation, once lost,
is gone forever."
See also French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy
Co., 191 U. S. 427,
191 U. S. 437.
At the very least, the family name has become the name for any
natural water of a certain type coming from a more or less
extensive district, if not from anywhere in Hungary. It does not
belong to the plaintiff alone in this country, even if she is the
only one now sending the water here. But if there is any well
founded doubt as to the right to use a personal tradename with
proper guards against deception to signify what one is imitating,
where one has the right to imitate, there can be none that one is
at liberty to refer to a geographical expression to signify the
source of one's model. "Hunyadi," at best, is now only a
geographical expression in effect.
Decree affirmed.