APOLLINARIS oo. v. sonsnsn. 19
Wamiscn, J. The complainant has applied for an injunction pen-
dcnte lite to restrain the defendant from importing into the United
States or selling here any water under the name or designation
"Hunyadi Janos," or offering to sell any water in bottles with that
name upon them, or with labels like those adopted and used by the
complainant to designate and distinguish the water from other min-
eral waters. The defendant is importing and selling here the water
of a certain mineral spring of Hungary owned by one Andreas Sax-
lehner. The waters are known as “Hunyadi J anos," the spring hav-
ing been christened by that name by Saxlehner, and the name as ap-
plied to the water having been adopted by him as a trade-mark.
Prior to the time of the acts complained of Saxlehner transferred to
the complainant the sole right to export the waters from Hungary to
Great Britain and America, and to sell them in these countries and
to use the trade-mark. For the more effectual protection of their re-
spective rights Saxlehner and the complainant adopted labels t0 be
affixed to the bottles of water to be sold by each bearing the name
“Hunyadi Janes" and other distinguishing devices. The labels used
by Saxlehner contained the following printed notice:
" CAUTION. This bottle is not intended for export, and if exported for sale
in Great Britain, her colonies, America, or other transmarine places, the pub·
lic is cautioned against purchasing it. Ammnas SAxLEHN1sn."
The labels used by the complainant contained in the place of this
notice the following:
"S0le exporters. The Apollinaris Company, Limited, London."
Thereafter all water sold by Saxlehner to purchasers in Germany
and other parts of continental Europe was sold in bottles with the
label which had been adopted for him, and all the water sold by the
complainant in Great Britain and the United States was sold in
bottles with the label adopted for its use.
V The complainant established an agency for the sale of the water in
this country, but, as it now asserts, is unable to maintain its own
prices for the article because the defendant purchases the water in
Germany from persons to whom it has been sold by Saxlehner, im-
ports it, and sells it here at lower prices. It is shown that the de-
fendant purchases the water in bottles under the label adopted by
Saxlehner containing the cautionary notice, and that he does this
after having applied to Saxlehner to sell him the water and been re-
fused and informed by Saxlehner of the complainants rights.
The bill of complaint proceeds in part upon the theory that the de-
fendant is infringing the complainants trade-mark in the name and
label applied to the water, but all the averments in this behalf may
be disregarded as irrelevant to the real question in the case. No
doubt is entertained that the name when applied to the water is a
valid trade-mark, and that the complainant should be protected against
the unauthorized use of the trade·mark by another. 9The complain-