The law of motion pictures (1918)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

INFRINGEMENT OF TITLES, ETC. 441 Plaintiff published a magazine under the title of Suburban Life. Defendant attempted the publication of a periodical, Philadelphia Suburban Life. He was enjoined.37 The title J. Gruber’s Hagerstown Town and County Almanack was held to infringe upon the title T. G. Robertson’s Hagerstown Almanack.™ The title Sherlock Holmes, Detective, has been held to infringe Sherlock Holmes.™ A book or pamphlet published by the plaintiff under the title of Pay son, Drunton & Scribner's National System of Penmanship, was held infringed by defendant’s book, Independent National System of Penmanship. 40 (Can.) (1885), 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 306. “In my opinion the plaintiff had the exclusive right to use the name ‘Beatty’ in connection with, and as denoting copy books of his manufacture, and no one has the right to the word for the purpose of passing off his books as those of the plaintiff, or even when innocent of that purpose, to use it in any way calculated to deceive, or aid in deceiving the public, to the detriment of the plaintiff . . . .” 37 Suburban Press v. Phila. Co. (1910), 227 Pa. 148; 75 Atl. 1037. “There are two classes of cases involving judicial interference with the use of names; first, where the intent is to get an unfair and fraudulent share of another’s business, and second, where the effect of defendant’s action, irrespective of his intent, is to produce confusion in the public mind and consequent loss to the plaintiff.” Citing American Clay Mfg. Co. v. American Clay Mfg. Co. (1901), 198 Pa. 189; 47 Atl. 936. 38 Robertson v. Berry (1878), 50 Md. 591. 39 Hopkins Amusement Co. v. Frohman (1903), 202 111. 541; 67 N. E. 391. 40 Potter v. McPherson (1880) , 21 Hun, 559. “Where such a simulated resemblance is found in the title made use of by one person to that previously used by another long engaged in the same business, the inference is just and natural that the motive for doing so is to acquire improp