﻿The 
  Blackwell 
  Litigation. 
  75 
  

  

  paiiy," 
  as 
  attached 
  to 
  a 
  firm 
  or 
  corporation 
  name, 
  could 
  be 
  

   regarded 
  as 
  a 
  trade-mark. 
  The 
  court 
  enjoined 
  against 
  

   fraud, 
  but 
  with 
  no 
  intention 
  of 
  defining 
  a 
  trade-mark. 
  

   Many 
  otlier 
  cases 
  to 
  the 
  same 
  effect 
  might 
  be 
  referred 
  to, 
  

   but 
  these 
  are 
  enough. 
  

  

  The 
  words 
  "Durham 
  Smoking 
  Tobacco 
  " 
  may 
  be 
  used 
  

   with 
  imi)unity 
  by 
  any 
  person 
  engaged 
  in 
  manufacturing 
  

   smoking 
  tobacco 
  at 
  Durham, 
  and 
  for 
  that 
  reason 
  no 
  one 
  

   person 
  has 
  any 
  exclusive 
  riglit 
  to 
  their 
  use. 
  By 
  the 
  statute 
  

   an 
  exclusive 
  right 
  to 
  use 
  the 
  proposed 
  trade-mark 
  must 
  be 
  

   established 
  before 
  registry 
  can 
  be 
  allowed. 
  

  

  Bv 
  application 
  of 
  the 
  doctrine 
  held 
  in 
  the 
  " 
  Akron 
  Ce- 
  

   ment 
  " 
  case, 
  any. 
  person 
  living 
  at 
  Durham, 
  and 
  engaged 
  in 
  

   manufacturing 
  tobacco, 
  might 
  enjoin 
  any 
  person 
  not 
  living 
  

   there 
  who 
  should 
  fraudulently 
  use 
  the 
  word 
  "Durham" 
  

   on 
  tobacco 
  labels 
  for 
  the 
  purpose 
  of 
  obtaining 
  trade 
  that 
  

   otherwise 
  would 
  go 
  to 
  Durham. 
  This 
  may 
  be 
  true, 
  and 
  yet 
  

   the 
  words 
  "Durham 
  Smoking 
  Tobacco" 
  not 
  be 
  a 
  legal 
  

   trade-mark. 
  These 
  parties 
  have 
  already 
  had 
  adjudicated 
  

   between 
  them 
  a 
  question 
  involving 
  nearly 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  points 
  

   here 
  discussed. 
  In 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  Blackwell 
  v. 
  Armistead, 
  

   lately 
  decided 
  in 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  Circuit 
  Court 
  for 
  the 
  

   Western 
  District 
  of 
  Virginia, 
  Justice 
  Rives 
  very 
  fully 
  and 
  

   ably 
  discusses 
  the 
  whole 
  matter 
  on 
  substantially 
  the 
  same 
  

   testimony 
  submitted 
  in 
  this 
  case. 
  The 
  trade-marks, 
  as 
  dis- 
  

   cussed 
  by 
  him, 
  differed 
  from 
  the 
  marks 
  under 
  consideration 
  

   here 
  in 
  this: 
  One 
  of 
  them 
  had, 
  in 
  addition 
  to 
  the 
  words 
  

   "Durham 
  Smoking 
  Tobacco," 
  the 
  representation 
  of 
  a 
  bull's 
  

   head, 
  and 
  the 
  other 
  of 
  the 
  full 
  size 
  view 
  of 
  a 
  bull. 
  So 
  far 
  

   as 
  the 
  questions 
  are 
  the 
  same, 
  I 
  believe 
  the 
  holdings 
  in 
  this 
  

   are 
  substantially 
  the 
  same 
  as 
  held 
  by 
  the 
  learned 
  Judge 
  in 
  

   that 
  case. 
  

  

  As 
  neither 
  party 
  is 
  entitled 
  to 
  registration, 
  the 
  interfer- 
  

   ence 
  must 
  be 
  dissolved 
  and 
  registration 
  refused 
  to 
  Armi- 
  

   stead. 
  

  

  THE 
  DIBRELL 
  CASE. 
  

  

  The 
  following 
  is 
  the 
  decision 
  of 
  the 
  court 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  

   \\\ 
  T. 
  Blackwell 
  vs. 
  W. 
  E. 
  Dibrell, 
  heard 
  before 
  t,he 
  U. 
  S. 
  

   Circuit 
  Court, 
  for 
  the 
  Eastern 
  District 
  of 
  Virginia, 
  held 
  in 
  

   Richmond, 
  Va., 
  Jan. 
  18th, 
  1878, 
  the 
  decision 
  being 
  rendered 
  

   by 
  His 
  Honor 
  R. 
  \V. 
  Hughes, 
  Judge 
  presiding; 
  

  

  