Cartier v Carlile
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1862 |
| Date | 07 March 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 1151
ROLLS COURT
31 BKAV. 392. CARTIER V. CARLILE 1151 [292] cartier . carlile. March 5, 6, 7, 1862. A Defendant ia liable in equity to account for the profits made by the user of a Plaintiff's trade mark, though, at the time of the user, he may have been ignorant of the right* and of the existence of the Plaintiff, and notwithstanding that, to entitle him to recover damages at law, it may be necessary to prove a scienter. The abject of this suit was to restrain the user of a trade mark on cotton labels, and for an account of cotton sold with such labels. The Plaintiff Cartier was a cotton manufacturer in Paris, carrying on trade under the style of "Cartier, Bresson Brothers." The firm had been accustomed to manufacture embroidery cotton, which was called " cross cotton," from the labels being in the form of a cross, or having a cross as a device thereon. The labels (as described by the bill) were on a colored ground, with figures, letters and words " and the mark of a cross printed thereon in yellow or gold color." The letters on the left and the figures on the right side of the upper part of the cross on such labels indicated the degree of fineness of the cotton. The letters C. B., placed the one on the left and the other on the right of the lower part of the cross on the small labels, indicated " Cartier Bresson," the name of the firm under which the Plaintiff carried on business, and the words "a Broiler ii la Croix," at the lower part of the small labels, were intended to designate the character of the cotton. It was alleged that the object of the whole of the label was to make the cotton manufactured by the Plaintiff easily distinguishable from that manufactured by others. There was a considerable sale of the Plaintiff's cotton in England. It appeared that the Defendants Carlile, Sons & Co. had manufactured and sold cotton with [293] labels similar to those of the Plaintiff, changing the C. B. to C. &., but according to the evidence they had done so in ignorance of the Plaintiffs rights. As to this, the Defendants in their answer stated as follows :- " We have, in the course of our business, manufactured various sorts of linen and cotton threads for sewing, embroidery and flowering purposes. These have, at different times, been made up with various labels, tickets and wrappers, the embroidery cotton in particular, sometimes having labels on the skeins, dozen pounds or grosses and sometimes not, and sometimes having wrappers without labels, but having devices printed on such wrappers, and sometimes without either labels or devices, the mode of doing up such cotton and the use of labels being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kettle Chip Company Pty Ltd (Now Known as Acn 003 655 132 Pty Ltd) v Apand Pty Ltd (Formerly Cca Snack Foods Pty Ltd)
-
McCambridge Ltd v Joseph Brennan Bakeries
...Werke AG v Ronayne [2013] IEHC 612, (Unrep, Ryan J, 19/12/2013); C & A Modes v C & A (Waterford) Ltd [1976] IR 198; Cartier v Carlile (1862) 54 ER 1151; Celanese International Corpn v BP Chemicals Ltd [1999] RPC 203; Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 50; Dart Industri......
- Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd
- Spring Form Inc. v Toy Brokers Ltd