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.
474
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
“Mutt and Jeff” characters. These cartoons, in effect the products of Fisher’s hand and brain, are to be treated as a commodity of barter and sale, the same as tangible goods or merchandise which may be sold under a distinctive mark or name which the vendor may exclusively use as a trade-mark or trade name in the sale of such goods. The mere circumstance that for a period of time Fisher obligated himself to produce his cartoons exclusively for the plaintiff no more deprived him of the exclusive right to use the trade-mark or trade name of his productions than would a manufacturer of goods known by a trade name be deprived of the exclusive right to such trade name, because he had agreed for a definite time to manufacture them exclusively for a given firm. Of course, during the time when Fisher was obliged to furnish his cartoons exclusively to the plaintiff, the latter had the exclusive right to the use of the trade name which went with the exclusive right to all of Fisher’s output; but when the contract terminated Fisher was at liberty to sell this output to whomsoever he wished. The law of the case is so well considered in Hanover Milling Co.
v. Metcalf, 240 U. S. 403 et seq. that citation of further authorities would be superfluous. In the opinion of the court the plaintiff is not entitled to the use of the trade name or trademark “Mutt and Jeff,” the right thereto being now vested in the Wheeler Syndicate under its subsisting contract with Fisher, subject to such rights, if any, reserved therein to Fisher. There must be a decree in favor of defendant.
Fisher v. Star Co. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed in Star Co. v. Wheeler Syndicate, a decree will be entered in favor of plaintiff.
Wheeler Syndicate v. Star Co. Upon the opinion filed this day in Star Co. v. Wheeler Syndicate, a decree will be entered in favor of plaintiff.”
See also opinion of Weeks, J., in denying the motion for an injunction pendente made by the Star Company in its action against the Wheeler Syndicate, reported in (1915), 91 Misc. (N. Y.) 640.
See also: Oulcaidt v. Neiv York Herald (1906), 146 Fed. (C. C.) 205. “The contention of complainant is that it is unfair competition in trade for any one else to draw or offer for sale any other pictures in which, although the