122 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
succeeded anger and just as I was about to leave, slie 
said, 
“Jtut if I gave you an order how do 1 know that you 
will treat me any belter than the other man?” “That is a 
very simple matter, you will know these plants when you 
see them. 1 will have them shipped to you and you don’t 
need to pay for them until you get the goods and the in¬ 
voice. 1 will trust you.” 
Today that lady would buy anything I suggested. In 
fact, I refuse to sell plants that she thinks she wants he- 
eause I know they \\ ould not he suitable for her grounds, 
hut there is not a new house goes up, or a prospect de¬ 
velops in that tow-n that she does not advise me of it, and 
being an enthusiast ie gardener she has many friends to 
w honi I have been reeommended. 
Practical knowledge does help the salesman. 
(To he continued) 
THE STARK LAWSUIT 
The United States District Court for the Southwestern 
Division of the Western District of Missouri, has granted 
a sweeping injunction against the William P. Stark Nur¬ 
series, enjoining them from the use of the trade-mark 
and from using the address “Stark City” in their adver¬ 
tising. 
They are also enjoined from using the word “Stark” in 
such manner as will not unmistakably differentiate their 
goods and advertisements from the original Stark 
Rrothers Nurseries. 
All the protits of the William P. Stark nurseries during 
the period of infringement of trade-mark, heginning with 
March II, 1914, are to he paid to the Stark Brothers, 
damages also are to he awarded to the Stark Brothers. 
In summing up the case the court stated: 
“While it may not he true that any single nurseryman 
may claim the exclusive privilege of propagating and ex¬ 
ploiting this apple (Delicious) upon the market, never¬ 
theless, read in connection with the known history there¬ 
of, the language quoted is obviously intended and cal¬ 
culated to confuse the public respecting the identity of 
these rival nurseries. 
“William P. Stark claims to have been the representa¬ 
tive of complainant, through whom this fruit w as origin¬ 
ally acquired. This is denied by complainant. He fur¬ 
ther claims to have named the fruit because of its flavor 
and the impression made upon him wdien he first tasted 
it. It is undoubtedly true that at that time this defendant 
w as one of the active members and an oflicer of the com¬ 
plainant corporation. His position is that he is a Stark, 
and that he was actively engaged in the operations which 
built the reputation of the Stark name in the nursery 
business. Conceding all this to he true, nevertheless it 
cannot lie denied that whatever he may have accom- 
jilished in this regard was as a representative of the com¬ 
plainant corporation, in its name, and for its benefit, as 
one ot others ol that family and corporation similarly en- 
gag(Hl. He cannot now draw^ to himself individual credit 
therelor to the extent of invading the jiroperty rights of 
complainant and of suhstituting himself for complainant 
to the confusion ol the public. He may not he denied the 
legitimate use of his name in business. 
1. “He may not aflirmatively do anything to cause the 
public to believe that his article is made by the 
first manufacturer. 
2. “He must exercise reasonable care to prevent the 
public from so believing. 
3. “He must exercise reasonable care to prevent the 
])uhlic from believing that he is the succssor in 
business of the first manufacturer.” 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR 
THE SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION OF THE WESTERN 
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 
Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Company, Complainant 
vs. 
William P. Stark and William H. Stark, Trustees 
Doing business under the name and style of 
William P. Stark Nurseries, Defendant 
In Equity No. 18 
DECREE 
This cause having come on to be heard upon the pleadings and 
proofs, and counsel for the respective parties having been heard, 
and the court being fully advised in the premises, now, upon 
consideration thereof 
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 
name “Stark Trees” has been a trademark upon fruit trees and 
nursery products for twenty-five years last past; that on June 24, 
1913, said trade-mark was duly registered under the ten-year 
clause of the Act of Congress of February 20, 1905, in the United 
States Patent Office, and is a valid and subsisting trade-mark 
under said Act of Congress. 
That the complainant Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Com¬ 
pany is, and ever since the year 1891 has been, the exclusive 
owner of said trade-mark, during all said time has carried on the 
business at the City of Louisiana in the State of Missouri, of pro¬ 
pagating, growing and selling fruit and nursery stock, and during 
all said time has used upon the boxes and packages containing 
said fruit trees grown and sold by it a label or stamp bearing 
the words “Stark Trees” as a trade-mark. 
That the defendants herein, William P. Stark and William H. 
Stark, Trustees, doing business under the name and style of Wil¬ 
liam P. Stark Nurseries, have infringed upon the said trade-mark, 
and upon the exclusive rights of the complainant under the same, 
by selling prior to and since the commencement of this suit fruit 
trees and nursery stock, to which parcels and packages contain¬ 
ing the same said defendants have attached a tag or label bear¬ 
ing in conspicuous printed letters the words “Nursery to Or¬ 
chard. William P. Stark Nurseries, Stark City, Mo.” together 
with the picture of a tree, said name “Stark” being prominently 
printed across the picture of the tree, thus plainly suggesting 
the term “Stark Trees;” that said label was widely exploited by 
said defendants in extensive advertising, all in imitation and in¬ 
fringement of the trade-mark “Stark Trees,” as charged in the 
bill of complaint. 
That during a period prior to the actual stating of the nursery 
now conducted by defendants the complainant had widely fea¬ 
tured in its advertising matter the addresses “Stark, Mo.,” 
“Starkdale, Mo.” and “Stark Station, Mo.”, all of which was well 
known to said defendants; that said defendants caused the name 
of the post office of the town of Chester, Missouri to be changed 
to Stark City, Missouri, adopted Stark City as an address and 
extensively advertised said address in their literature and in 
connection with their business with the intention of misleading 
the public into the belief that defendants’ nursery was that of 
the original Stark Nursery Company ;by such action defendants 
intended to and did mislead the public, and intended to and did 
gain an unfair advantage in trade to the injury of the prestige 
and business of the complainant company. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 
by reason of their infringement of said trade-mark “Stark Trees,” 
and by reason of their wrongful use of the name “Stark” and the 
address “Stark City,” the complainant do recover of the defend¬ 
ants William P. Stark, William H. Stark and the William P. Stark 
Nurseries all gains and profits which said William P. Stark, Wil- 
