OCR Text |
Show 71,(1 ra FOn ALLEGED ipTEfIT Suit in U. S DUt Court Charge "Coout-O" Company Com-pany With illegal Mark-tngf Mark-tngf of It Product Peter R. Peterson entered auit In the United States district court here Saturday asking 171,009 to be divided between himself and the f United States and nam'ng the I Coast -O' Manufacturing and Bales com ps ny, P. F. Pet arson. M ort f -mer Decker, George A. ltlake, H. H. Cluft Lewis W. Gardiner. I. Co fern an, N. G. Morgan, "B. P. Huf faker. If, Glaosman an J. I. Shepard aa eodefsndsnts tn a complaint charging violation of the federal statutes pertaining tt the marking of manufactured articles aa patented when no patnt exlete. The action Is the flrftt of lte kind over brought In the local district and one under which but few actions ac-tions have over been brought, to-! cai federal officers oar The statute tinder which the action Is brought provides that whenever a person shall mark an unpatented article as patented with Intention In-tention to deceive the n 'J bill he shall bo subject to a fine of not leee than $100 which will bo divided di-vided equally between- the Informant In-formant or- the party bringing suit and the United States dlatrlct court In which the action la heard. CHARGES FALSI LABEL. Peterson In his complaint, at that the Coaat-O' Manufacturing Manufac-turing and Sales company and the other defendants as officers and directors of thst oomnnny did so falaely tbel thefr product. Thla company, organised locally ' and oflcered by lawyers and business men of the community, produces a wheel attachment for sleds by which a hand sled may be trene-formed trene-formed Into a wheel coaetor. the complaint reel tea. It then alleges that on Juno 26. 1923, this company com-pany produced 110 of these attachments at-tachments which - were marked "Coast-), Pat 'ted January to. 1021"; and on June It, S&0 additional ad-ditional roasters were produced and similarly marked. These marklntr were Intended to deceive the public, the complaint charges, and were tn violation of the federal eta tuts cited. Peterson sake judgment In behalf of hlmaelf and the United States to th extent of I $100 for each article so marked and ! costs, the fine to be equally divided i between himself and the federal i sovernment. That Is. he asks $71.-! $71.-! 000, to he divided between himself and ths United States dlatrlct court , for this district. LAW HIT AT ACTION, Search of the federal court reports re-ports reveals thst the circuit eout of spneola hsi held thst this atatutt comrpehendS'lhe action of marking rather than the mark Itself, so thst a defendant la llabls for only one fine where the marking of several articles ha a been on continuous operation. That I, under the ruling of th circuit court, Peterson's claim for $71,000 will dwindle to $200, only one -ha if of which will devolve to him, providing the elements of the case are held In conformance with those cases previously considered by the higher court. |