16 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
TRADE-MARK CASE. 
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN STARK 
BROS. COMPANY AND JAMES B. WILD <£ BROS. 
the Other Side of the Case — Statement by Stark Bros. Co., 
Showing That Action H'as Only Temporarily Dismissed— 
Controversy Not Wholly a Question of Nomencla¬ 
ture — Claims of Open Infringement — 
Trade-Mark To Be Protected. 
Replying to articles published in the January issue of the 
National Nurseryman, relating to Black Ben Davis and 
Gano apples and the trade-mark case brought by Stark Bros. 
Nurseries & Orchards Co. against James B. Wild & Brothers, 
Sarcoxie, Mo., the Stark Bros. Company write as follows: 
Editor National Nurseryman: We thank you for favor 
of the 18th inst. We. note your prompt disavowal of respon¬ 
sibility for the articles appearing in January number of the 
National Nurseryman, entitled respectively, “ Black Ben 
Davis and Gano” and “Trade-Mark Case Dismissed.” Had 
you simply printed these article over the signatures of authors, 
we would have cared very little, although we might have 
thought a publication like yours, an official organ, should 
exercise a more rigid censorship over the matter admitted to 
its columns. The great injury done us, however, is because 
you accepted both articles as a matter of news, making the 
insertion as a reader, following them with editorial comment, 
thereby giving both the weight of your publication. To be 
plain, we felt not only indignant but outraged. However, 
your prompt acknowledgment of error, your offer to repair so 
far as lies within your power b}'' explaining in next issue, we 
accept as satisfactory. 
NOT QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE. 
For your information we desire to say that this Black Ben 
Davis and Gano controversy is not a question of nomencla¬ 
ture; instead it is the outcome of petty jealousy, self-interest 
and vindictiveness. In an open fight no one fears the result 
of an issue with such antagonists. These people, however, 
do not work that way. They prefer rather to remain invis¬ 
ible, working under cover as they have done in your case. 
In the conduct of our business our time has been fully em¬ 
ployed and we have simply ignored these petty efforts. But 
they go so far, using publications like yours, using state horti¬ 
cultural societies, and even government departments to gain 
their end that we think it is high time to call a halt and give 
the people the facts. In making above statement it is not our 
intention to impugn the honesty or the motive of either hor¬ 
ticultural society, government department or yourselves. It 
is the means, the questionable methods used to which we refer, 
and which have been the same in each case. From the same 
fountain head which furnished you this innocent reader on 
Black Ben Davis and Gano came the gentle zephyr which 
blew into Washington City last summer, carrying another 
subtle suggestion that it would have been possible for Stark 
Bros, to have picked all the striped apples off the Bain trees 
before the Missouri committee and Professor Van Deman got 
there. From the same magical source was exhibited at 
Edwardsville, Kansas, the sample Black Ben Davis apple 
which came from the original Black Ben Davis tree, although 
this same tree had been destroyed years before. Truly this 
is a great testimonial for the keeping qualities of this variety. 
BLACK BEN DAVIS AND GANO DISTINCT. 
But enough of this except to say we have named but two 
or three instances; there are many. We are glad your letter 
distinctly locates the responsibility. We expect to look into 
that a little later. In your next issue in addition to giving the 
people the facts in regard to these two articles, we will ask 
you, in justice to us, also to give them the facts concerning 
Black Ben Davis and Gano by publishing the report made by 
the Arkansas State Horticultural Society at Van Buren, Ark., 
on the 14th of January, 1904. This society at this meeting, 
feeling an injustice had been done, spoke in no uncertain 
tones, pronouncing Black Ben Davis to be not only of distinct 
seedling origin, but a separate and distinct variety from Gano, 
to which report they append evidence which cannot be contro¬ 
verted. In addition to this report we desire very much that 
you publish the opinions given by as eminent pomologists as 
can be found in the United States, horticulturists, orchard- 
ists, etc., many of whom first held that varieties were one and 
the same, but after personal investigation, tests of different 
character, etc., are now as pronounced in their opinion that 
they are separate varieties as even Stark Bros.; but we know 
your lack of space forbids. For the benefit of your readers, 
however, we will say, “that those directly interested may 
obtain” them by simply sending us a request only and they 
will be furnished without the charge of $1.00 or any other 
sum. Right here allow us to add that we have yet to find a 
single grower who, having fruited the true stock of each vari¬ 
ety side by side under same conditions, but who pronounces 
them distinct and Black Ben Davis the superior of the two. 
What the people want and what they are entitled to is 
facts and not personalities; hence, while there are pages we 
could write you as to the work of those who are at the bottom 
of this controversy, the methods employed by which they 
have succeeded in using some good and honest men, we for¬ 
bear for the present. We know our position, have make no 
claims which we are not abundantly able to substantiate 
and which the future will prove. We first placed Black Ben 
Davis on the market in 1895, since which time we have shipped 
trees of this variety into every state of the Union and many 
foreign countries. In short, a majority of the orchards, 
especially in Central and Western territory, have both Black 
Ben Davis and Gano growing side by side. We are content 
to let the trees tell the true story and pronounce the verdict 
from now on. This will be a verdict which no pomologists, no 
horticultural societies can influence or controvert. 
QUESTION OF TRADE-MARK. 
So much for the Black Ben Davis and Gano article. Now 
what about the trade-mark article and Mr. Wild’s clipping 
from Sarcoxie paper sent you? Here are the facts: 
During the year 1895 we adopted trade-marks on several 
seedling apples which originated in North-west Arkansas, 
known there in a neighborhood or local way only. We early 
learned that this part of Arkansas was one of the best apple 
sections in the United States, learning further, as stated in 
the Stark Fruit Book, one of our first publications following 
