Sykes against Sykes and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 834
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 D. & R. 292; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 46. Distinguished, Leather Cloth Company v. Hirschfield, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 302. Considered, Ford v. Foster, 1872, L. R. 7 Ch. 630; Richards v. Williamson, 1874, 30 L. T. 748; Singer Machine Manufacturers v. Wilson, 1876-77, 2 Ch. D. 454; 3 App. Cas. 376. Referred to, Cheavin v. Walker, 1877, 5 Ch. D. 860. Adopted, Singer Manufacturing Company v. Loog, 1882, 8 App. Cas. 30. Considered, Blair v. Stock, 1884, 52 L. T. 125. Recognised, Powell v. Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Company, [1896] 2 Ch. 68; [1897] A. C. 710.
541] sykes against sykes and another (a). 1824. Where a manufacturer had adopted a particular mark for his goods, in order to denote that they were manufactured by him: Held, that an action on the case was maintainable by him against another person who adopted the same mark for the purpose of denoting that his goods were manufactured by the plaintiff, and who sold the goods so marked as and for goods manufactured by the plaintiff. The declaration stated that defendant sold the goods as and for goods manufactured by the plaintiff; it appeared in evidence that the persons who bought the goods of the defendant knew by whom they were manufactured-, but that the defendant used the plaintiff's mark, and sold the goods so marked in order that his customers might, and in fact they did, resell them as and for goods manufactured by the plaintiff: Held, that this evidence supported the declaration. [S. C. 5 D. & E. 292; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 46. Distinguished, Leather Cloth Company v. Hirschfield, 1865, L. E. 1 Eq. 302. Considered, Ford v. Foster, 1872, L. K. 7 Ch. 630; Richards v. Williamson, 1874, 30 L. T. 748; Singer Machine Manufacturers v. Wilson, 1876-77, 2 Ch. D. 454; 3 App. Cas. 376. Beferred to, Cheamn v. Walker, 1877, 5 Ch. D. 860. Adopted, Singer Manufacturing Company v. Loog, 1882, 8 App. Cas. 30. Considered, Blair v. Stock, 1884, 52 L. T. 125. Recognised, Powell v. Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Company, [1896] 2 Ch. 68; [1897] A. C. 710.] Case. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff, before and at the time of committing the grievances complained of, carried on the business of a shot-belt and powder-flask manufacturer, and made and sold for profit a large quantity of shot-belts, powder-flasks, &c., which he was accustomed to mark with the words " Sykes Patent," in order to denote that they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCambridge Ltd v Joseph Brennan Bakeries
...[1897] 1 Ch 893; Seager v Copydex Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 923; Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation (1940) 309 US 390; Sykes v Sykes (1824) 107 ER 834; Walsh v Shanahan [2013] EWCA Civ 411, [2013] 2 P & CR D18; Weingarten Brothers v Bayer & Co [1904-07] All ER Rep 877; Westinghouse Electri......
- Angelides v James Stedman Hendersons Sweets Ltd
- Conagra Inc. v Mccain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd
-
Pontifex v Bignold
...in any respect by effecting it." (c) 4 B. & Ad. 410, 1 N. & M. 353. But see Williams v. Mostyn, 4 M. & W. 145, 154; Sykes v. Sykes, 3 B. & C. 541, 5 Dowl. & Eyl. 292. (a)2 Quaere. Many things, cured by verdict, are not cured by pleading over. C. P. xl-34* 1066 PONTIFEX V. BIUNOLD 3MAH. &G.8......