The Right to “Ludlow” Sustained.

The Right to “Ludlow” Sustained.

An attempt having been made by another manufacturer to appropriate the trade-name “Ludlow,” as applied to valves and hydrants, an action was brought by the Ludlow Valve Manufacturing company some time since for the protection of its rights, which has just resulted in a decision in its favor by the United States Circuit court of Appeals for the Third circuit, in which a unanimous court rendered an opinion which will not only protect the Ludlow Manufacturing company, of Troy, N. Y., but the public as well from further wanton infringement of its rights in relation to the use of the name “Ludlow,” and will prevent others from sailing under false colors. The defendant, in his answer, denied generally the allegations upon which the claim of a common law trade-mark is founded, and the existence of such a property right in the name “Ludlow,” claiming that, by virtue of his peculiar patented devices and because, by the expiration of the opposing company’s patents, that type of valve has been open to all manufacturers. The court ruled that other manufacturers of such valves and hydrants had made and successfully advertised them, but without the word “Ludlow,” or at least such use of it as is made by the defendant, who, by his present method of advertisement, had been guilty of unfair competition with the complainant, and must be restrained from his present practice in that regard, and from using the word “Ludlow” in its advertisements or on its machines, without placing his own name at the head of such advertisements and making it clear in the body thereof that it is manufacturing the articles in question, iudependentlv of the complainant company, by describing the valves and hydrants manufactured by him as of the “Ludlow” model or type, and that the complainant company is not the manufacturer thereof. The decree of the lower court was reversed, with costs, and the defendant, his agents, servants, and representatives were perpetually enjoined from using the word “Ludlow,” or any equivalent thereof, upon valves or hydrants, or’in advertisements in relation thereto, without clearly and unmistakably specifying that the valves and hydrants are made by the defendant, as distinguished from those made by the Ludlow’ Manufacturing company.

Previous articleFE Volume 45 Issue 27
Next articleNew Jersey Fire Notes.

No posts to display