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.

442 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES The title Dr. Eliot's Five-Foot Shelf of the World's Best Books and the title Dr. Eliot's Five-Foot Shelf of the World's Greatest Books were both held to compete unfairly with the expression Dr. Eliot's Five-Foot Shelf of Books.41 The title Chatterbox on a series of publications has been held to infringe a prior series under that title.42 Comfort and Home Comfort have been declared in competition, the latter infringing on the former.43 Plaintiffs had for many years printed the well-known Oxford Bible. The defendant published a bible specified in the title page as an Oxford Bible, The S. S. Teacher's Edition and on the back as a Holy Bible; Oxford, S. S. Teacher's Edition. Held that was an infringement, and should be restrained.44 The use of the title Webster’s Dictionary, unless there was an explanation published in such manner as to indicate clearly that plaintiffs were not its publishers, was held to be unfair competition.45 The complainant published a trade journal under the title The United States Investor. The defendant issued a similar publication entitled The Investor and inserted at erly the patronage and trade of the other, and no reason exists for excluding this case from the control of that presumption.” 41 Collier v. Jones (1910), 66 Misc. (N. Y.) 97; 120 N. Y. Supp. 991; modified 140 A. D. (N. Y.) 911; 125 N. Y. Supp. 1116. 42 Estes v. Leslie (1886), 27 (C. C.) 22; Estes v. Worthington (1887), 31 Fed. (C. C.) 154. i3Gannert v. Rupert (1904), 127 Fed. (C. C. A.) 962. 44 Chancellor Oxford Univ. v. Wilmore Andrews (1900), 101 Fed. (C. C.) 443. 45 Ogilvie v. Merriam Co. (1907), 149 Fed. (C. C.) 858; Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie (1908), 159 Fed. (C. C. A.) 638.