Names merely descriptive, which have ac quired by long use a secondary distinctive meaning and have come to mean the goods of a particular trader, and where the defend ant is not selling the genuine goods (as where the composition is a secret), the defendant cannot rely on the defence that the plaintiff has not a valid trade-mark. Thus "Camel Hair Belting" has acquired a secondary meaning ; [1896] App. Cas. 199; but if the primary meaning is simple and well known, it is difficult to establish a secondary mean ing ; thus, "Naphtha Soap ;" [1904] 21 R. P. C. 373.
Nor can the name of the party be a valid trade-mark, as others may, under some cir cumstances, use the same name ; Borden L C. Co. v. Milk Co., 201 Fed. 510, 121 C. C. A. 200 ; see infra.
No property can be acquired in words, marks, or devices which denote the mere nature, kind, and quality of articles ; Amos keag Mfg. Co. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51, 25 L. Ed. 993 ; L. R. 17 Eq. 29. See Colgan v. Danheiser, 35 Fed. 150 ; Goodyear I R. G. Mfg. Co. v. Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598, 9 Sup. Ct. 166, 32 L. Ed. 535; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537, 11 Sup. Ct. 396, 34 L. Ed. 997; and where a device, mark, or symbol is adopted for any purpose other than a reference to, or indication of its ownership, it cannot be sustained as a valid trade-mark ; Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U. S. 460, 14 Sup. Ct. 151, 37 L. Ed. 1144.
Numerals can be used as trade-marks• Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. 717; ' contra, Avery v. Meikle, 81 Ky. 73; but not if they indicate quality or grade; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537, 11 Sup. Ct. S96, 34 L. Ed. 997; and the same is true of letters when used as trade-marks. See Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 138 U. S. 537, 11 Sup. Ct. 396, 34 L. Ed. 997. A numeral, when combined with some other symbol, may become a vital part of a valid trade-mark; Goldsmith Silver Co. v. Savage, 211 Fed. 751. The use of the numerals 303 in con nection with the maker's name, impressed on pens to distinguish their character from oth er patterns of the same maker, which has be come well known and established, vests a right in the maker, and another manufactur er of pens would not be permitted to place those numerals on pens of like size, etc., if it appear that the public would be deceived; Gillott v. Esterbrook, 48 N. Y. 374, 8 Am. Rep. 553. .
As to the right to protectiOn of numerals as trade-marks, see Rocky Mountain Bell Tel. Co. v. Telephone Co., 31 Utah, 377, 88 Pac. 26, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1153.
Marks that simply indicate the quality of articles do not constitute a valid trade mark; so of words, etc., which indicate the peculiar excellence of goods, for instance "Ne Plus Ultra" for needles ; 13 L. T. N. S. 746; "Nourishing" Stout; L. R. 17 Eq. 59. Words which indicate the purpose and character of medicines or articles cannot be exclusive property for a trade-mark, thus: "Cramp" Cure; Harris Drug Co. v. Stucky, 46 Fed.
625; "Microbe Killer;" Alff v. Radam, 77 Tex. 530, 14 S. W.'164, 9 L. R. A. 145, 19 Am. St. Rep. 792. Words which are simply descriptive of the quality or appearance of an article or the place where it was manu factured cannot be monopolized as a trade mark; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540, 11 Sup. Ct. 625, 35 L. Ed. 247. Thus, "Acid Phosphate ;" Rumford Chemical Works v. Muth, 35 Fed. 524, 1 L. R. A. 44; "Cherry Pectoral;" •Ayer v. Rushton, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 9.
The color of a label or package does not constitute a valid trade-mark. See Coats v. Thread Co., 149 U. S. 562, 13 Sup. Ct. 966, 37 L. Ed. 847; 37 Ch. Div. 112.
A trade-mark for wire rope of a red or other distinctively colored streak applied to or woven into 'the rope is too wide and too indefinite; A. Leschen & Sops Rope Co. v. Rope Co., 201 U. S. 166, 26 Sup. Ct. 425, 50 L. Ed. 710. But colored stripes woven into the fabric of the entire length of canvas hose (two blue lines with a red line between them, of about half an inch in width) con stitute, in England, a trade-mark proper for registration; [1914] R. P. C. 147 (Ch. Div.).
A form of package cannot be a trade mark; Fischer v. Blank, 138 N. Y. 245, 33 N. E. 1040.
The following are instances of valid trade marks; "Celluloid;" Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Read, 47 Fed. 712; "Kaiser," beer ; J. & P.
Baltz Brewing Co. v. Kaiserbrauerel, Beck & Co., 74 Fed. 222, 20 C. C. A. 402; "Royal Baking Powder ;" Royal Baking Pow der Co. v. Raymond, 70 Fed. 376; "Bro mo-Caffeine ;" Keasbey v. Chemical Works, 142 N. Y. 467, 37 N. B. 476, 40 Am. St. Rep. 623; "La Favorita," flour ; Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514, 9 Sup. Ct. 143, 32 L. Ed. 526; "Star," shirts; Hutchinson v. Blum berg, 51 Fed. 829; "Saponifier," soap; Penn sylvania Salt Mfg. Co. v. Myers, 79 Fed. 87; "Vulcan," matches ; Taendsticksfabriks Ak ticbolagat Vulcan v. Myers, 139 N. Y. 364, 34 N. E. 904; "Ideal," pens; Waterman v. Shipman, 130 N. Y. 301, 29 N. E. 111; "Elk," cigars; Lichtenstein v. Goldsmith, 37 Fed. 359; "Bromidia ;" Battle v. Finlay, 50 Fed. 106; "Swans Down," complexion powder; Tetlow v. Tappan, 85 Fed. 774 ; "Moxie," nerve food ; Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Beach, 33 Fed. 248 ; "Charter Oak," for a stove ; Filley v. Child, 16 Blatchf. 376, Fed. Cas. No. 4,787; "Nickle In," cigars; Schendel v. Silver, 63 Hun 330, 18 N. Y. Supp. 1; "Valvoline," lu bricating oil; Leonard v. Lubricator Co., 38 Fed. 922 ; "Tin Tag," tobacco ; Lorillard v. Pride, 28 Fed. 434 ; "Sapolio," soap ; Enoch Morgan's Sons' Co. v. Schwachhofer, 55 How. Pr. 37; "Syrup of Figs," of a medic inal preparation; Improved Fig Sirup Co. v. Fig Sirup Co., 54 Fed. 175, 4 C. C. A. 264; 7 U. S. App. 588; "Sunshine," stoves; Read ing Stove Works v. Howes Co., 201 Mass. 427, 87 N. E. 751, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 979; "Uneeda," biscuits; National Biscuit Co. v. Baker, 95 Fed. 135.