NEW HOME SEWING MACH. CO. v. BLOOMINGDALE et al.

NEW HOME SEWING MACH. CO. v. BLOOMINGDALE et al. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. December 30, 1893.) Trade-Mark — Infringement. Tbe use of tbe word “Home” in connection with a make of sewing machine for over 25 years entitles tbe manufacturer to protection against one wbo puts tbe words “Home Delight" in a similar way on machines offered for sale by him. In Equity. Suit by-the New Home Sewing Machine Company against Lyman G-. Bloomingdale and others to enjoin infringement of a trade-mark.' Injunction granted. John Dane, Jr., for orator. D. Solis Ritterband, for defendants. [MAJORITY — WHEELER, District Judge.] WHEELER, District Judge. The pleadings and proofs show that during about 25 years the predecessors of the orator have, and lately the orator, a corporation of Massachusetts, has, used the word “Home” in making and selling sewing machines; that by this name, which was registered by them as a trade-mark March 15, 1892, their machines acquired a wide and favorable reputation; and that the defendants are putting the words “Home Delight” in a similar way upon sewing machines offered by them for _ sale. This use of tliat word seems to he well calculated to lead ordinary purchasers of such machines to think that these machines come from the orator or its predecessors. Tire defendants have no right to so pass oif their machines as those of the orator. McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245. This proof is sufficient for preventive relief without proof of actual sales by these means of defendants’ machines for the orator’s. Decree for orator for an injunction.