GLOTIN et al. v. OSWALD et al.

GLOTIN et al. v. OSWALD et al. (Circuit Court, D. Minnesota. December 12, 1894.) Circuit Court — -Jurisdictional Amount — Pleading. St. .1881, giving the right to commence suit, in a trade-mark case, without alleging the amount in controversy, is not repealed by the statutes of 1887 and 1888, requiring the amount involved to be §2,000, to give the circuit court jurisdiction. Suit by Marie Brizard Glotin and others, doing business as Les IleriticTS de Marie Brizard & Roger, against John O. Oswald and another, partners as J. O. Oswald & Go. Defendants demur to the complaint. Demurrer overruled. In this case an injunction is asked hy complainants to restrain defendants from selling or offering for sale a spurious brand of liqueur called “Crime de Menthe,” whereby the bottles, labels, and trade-marks duly registered in compliance with the laws of the United States, which have been used hy ihe complainants for many years, are so closely imitated as to deceive the public into the belief that the goods so put up are the genuine liqueurs manufactured by ihese complainants. A demurrer is interposed by defendants, on the ground that it. does not appear by ihe hill of complaint that, the sum of §2,000 is involved in this action, and hence this court has no jurisdiction. Boardman & Boutelle, for complainants. Taylor & Spooner, for defendants. [MAJORITY — NELSOX, District Judge.] NELSOX, District Judge. The complaint shows that these complainants, residents and citizens of the republic of France, are making a liqueur called “Creme de Menthe” in France, and exporting it to this country; and having filed their trade-mark here, and complied with the law in that respect, they are entitled to protection. The statute of 1881, which gives them the right to commence a suit without alleging ihe amount in controversy, was not repealed by the statutes of 1887 and 1888, which make it necessary, in order to give jurisdiction t,o the United States circuit court, that the amount involved be §2,000. The demurrer is overruled, and the motion for a temporary injunction granted, and defendants will be given until next rule day to file their answer.