ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.

<p>Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1912, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1911, No. 710, on bill in equity in case of 'Maebeth-Evans Glass Company v. Harry A. Schnelbach and Jefferson Glass Company.</p> <p>Bill in equity for an injunction.</p> <p>Shafer, J., found the facts to be as follows:</p> <p>First. The Maebeth-Evans Glass Company was incorporated in 1899,. and has been principally engaged since that time in the manufacture and sale of glassware for illuminating, purposes. Mr. George A. Macbeth has been president of the company since its organization, and has been engaged in the manufacture of glass since about 1872.</p> <p>. , Second. At the time of the formation of the MaebethEvans. Glass Company the defendant Harry Schnelbach was in the employ of the Thomas Evans Glass Company, one of the constituent companies out of which the plaintiff company was formed, and he thereupon entered into the employ of the plaintiff company and remained in its employ until about the beginning of the year 1910, being employed, as a factory superintendent.</p> <p>Third. Beginning in the year 1900 or soon thereafter George A. Macbeth on behalf of the plaintiff company began a series of investigations and experiments for the purpose of discovering a method of making a better semi-translucent glass for illuminating purposes than those theretofore known. The defect in the glass which he .endeavored to remedy was that the means taken to make it more or less opaque also prevented the diffusion of light through it, and the object was to make a glass which should appear to be opaque and yet should allow the light to be diffused through it. For this purpose Mr. Macbeth consulted the literature on glass-making and consulted with Mr. Nash of the Tiffany works and had him make experiments, but without success. He then employed a chemist, Mr. Silverman, to investigate the matter and make experiments, about September of 1902, and these experiments were continued to the su

<p>In Equity. Suit for unfair competition in trade.</p> <p>This is a suit by the Bissell Chilled Plow Works, an Indiana corporation, engaged in the business of selling plows and wood pulp of its own manufacture at South Bend, Ind., against the T. M. Bissell Plow Company, a Michigan corporation, engaged in the business of selling plows of its own manufacture at Eaton Rapids, Mich., and certain officers thereof. The relief sought is an injunction restraining defendants from using the proper name “Bissell” as part of the name of the defendant corporation, or upon the plows sold by it, and a recovery of damages for past use thereof in such connection. The question to be determined is whether the. facts shown by the evidence in the record are such as to entitle complainant to all or either part of this relief.</p> <p>Complainant was incorporated and organized January 11, 1881. Its name at first, and until June 2, 1891, was “The South Bend Pulp Company.” On that date it wás changed to “The Bissell Chilled Plow Works,” its present name, by the judgment of the circuit court of St. Joseph county, Ind., of which South Bend is the county seat, in proceedings had in pursuance of the statutes of Indiana, begun February 21, 1891. Its business has always been as before stated, but the principal part thereof for from some time before the change in name, if not always, has been the sale of plows, and, if it still continues to sell wood pulp, it is only to a small extent. These two departments of its business have always been kept separate and distinct. Before the change in corporate name, it had a trade-name for its plow department, to wit, “The Bissell Chilled Plow Works,” the same which so became its corporate name. This was the trade-name of that department before that change, from the very beginning. There was nothing done by it in connection therewith that was not done in that name. All correspondence, bill heads, letter heads, price lists, advertisements, and contracts in rela