Where the owner of a patented article marked It as patented, and also called it by a designated name, by which it became known, upon the expiration of the patent, other man ufacturers having the right to make the ar ticle have also the right to use the name, pro vided they take care not to have their prod uct confused with that of the original mak er; Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. Ford, 203 Fed. 707, 122 C. C. A. 12, following Singer Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169, 16 Sup. Ct. 1002, 41 L. Ed. 118 (the Singer Sewing Machine Case). When the right to manufacture an article becomes public, the right to use the only word descriptive of the article manu factured becomes public also ; Holzapfel's Compositions Co. v._ Am. Composition Co., 183 U. S. 1, 22 Sup. Ct. 6, 46 L. Ed. 49. After the patent expired on "Jenkins' Valves," another could sell Jenkins' valves, but he must disclose the source of manu facture so as to prevent the public from be lieving that his valves were those of the suc cessor of the patentee ; Jenkins Bros. v. Kelly, 212 Fed. 328. Upon the expiration of the patent on "Castoria," the word became the property of the public; Centaur Co. v. Heinsfurter, 84 Fed. 955, 28 C. C. A. 581; so of "Linoleum" ; 7 Ch. Div. 834 ; and of "Granite" ; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Piper, 12 Xlisc. 270, 33 N. Y. Supp. 443.
When the copyright of Webster's Diction ary expired, the exclusive right to the name also expired, and another publisher might use "Webster" if he printed his name on the back or cover and title page to distinguish his publication ; Western Electric Co. v. Tel. Co., 148 Fed. 858 ; to the same effect after expiration of a patent or copyright ; G. & C.
Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie, 159 Fed. 638, 88 C. C. A. 596, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 549, and note, 14 Ann. Cas. 796.
A word which might become a valid trade mark when applied to an unpatented article may not be so when applied to a patented article ; the patent indicates the ownership and origin ; Dover Stamping Co. v. Fellows, 163 Mass. 191, 40 N. E. 105, 28 L. R. A. 448, 47 Am. St. Rep. 448.
The members of a voluntary union of cigar-makers are entitled to protection in the exclusive use of a label to designate the exclusive product of their labor, though they are only employed for wages; Hetterman v. Powers, 102 Ky. 133, 43 S. W. 180, 39 L. R. A. 211, 80 Am. St. Rep. 348; contra, McVey v. Brendel, 144 Pa. 235, 22 Atl. 912, 13 L. R. A. 377, 27 Am. St. Rep. 625.
The courts will not grant relief where there is a false representation, calculated to deceive the public, as to the manufacture of an article, and the place where it is manu factured; Joseph v. Macowsky, 96 Cal. 518,
31 Pac. 914, 19 L. R. A. 53. See supra. Where a complainant uses a geographical name to represent untruthfully the place of his manufacture he cannot obtain relief ; Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood, 108 U. S. 218, 2 Sup. Ct. 436, 27 L. Ed. 706 ; Connell v. Reed, 128 Mass. 477, 35 Am. Rep. 397 ; Pepper v. Labrot, 8 Fed. 29; [1891] 2 Ch. 166.
The doctrine that he who comes into equity must come in with clean hands does not apply to the owner of a trade-mark seeking protection where, in hls trade-mark or label, no misrepresentations are made, but they are extrinsic or collateral thereto ; Johnson & Johnson v. Seabury, 71 N. J. Eq. 750, 67 Atl. 36, 12 L R. A. (N. S.) 1201, 124 Am. St. Rep. 1007, 14 Ann. Cas. 840. The mere fact that a jobber of shoes, who has them manufac tured for him by another, describes himself on his letter head a manufacturer of shoes, will not destroy his right to equitable relief against one who infringes his trade mark ; Nelson v. Winchell & Co., 203 Mass. 75, 89 N. E. 180, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151.
Where the owner of a trade-mark, in his trade-marks or advertisements and business. is guilty of any false or misleading repre sentation, he loses his right to the assistance of a court of equity ; Worden v. Syrup Co., 187 U. S. 516, 23 Sup. Ct. 161, 47 L. Ed. 282.
Where a symbol or label claimed as a trade-mark contains a distinct assertion which is false, no right to its exclusive use can be maintained ; Holzapfel's Compositions Co. v. Comp. Co., 183 U. S. 1, 22 Sup: Ct. 6, 46 L. Ed. 49 (here the use of the word "patent" when there has been none); so in Raymond v. Baking Powder CO., 85 Fed. 231, 29 C. C. A. 245, of a statement that the ar ticle was made in London, by "Purveyors to the Queen," When it was made in New York. In State v. Hagen, 6 Ind. App. 167, 33 N. E.
223, offensive words on a cigar box label, re ferring to rat-shop, filthy tenement house cigars of other makers, were held not to dis entitle the label to protection.
"Imposition on the public is not a ground on which a plaintiff can come into court, but it is a very good ground for keeping him out of it ;" Ubeda v. Zialcita, 226 U. S. 452, 33 Sup. Ct. 165, 57 L. Ed. 296.
It is not necessary that the owner of a trade-mark himself should manufacture the goods which the trade-mark designates; Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514, 9 Sup. Ct. 143, 32 L. Ed. 526 ; Smith v. Walker, 57 Mich. 456, 22 N. W. 267, 24 N. W. 830. 26 N. W. 783 ; he may import them; Godillot v. Harris, 81 N. Y. 263 ; or have them made for him; Nelson v. Winchell & Co., 203 Mass. 75, 89 N. E. 180, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) IJ51.