Buchanan Lyall v. Carpenter

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Buchanan Lyall v. Carpenter

36 A. 90, 19 R.I. 337, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 72

DecidedJanuary 13, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A. 90 (Buchanan Lyall v. Carpenter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buchanan Lyall v. Carpenter, 36 A. 90, 19 R.I. 337, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 72 (R.I. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the respondent’s exception to Master’s report allowing to the complainants $280.73 for expenses of advertisements subsequent to the granting of the preliminary injunction in the case, as damages, should be sustained.

We think it is questionable whether the cost of advertising by a complainant prior to an injunction, warning the public of the counterfeiting of his trade mark by a respondent, can be allowed as damages properly in equity, as we understand that a complainant’s right to recover is limited to the profits made by the respondent from the use of the trade mark. Fowle v. Park, 18 Fed. Rep. 789. But, however this may be, we are clearly of the opinion that the costs of such advertisement subsequent to the granting of the injunction is not allowable.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the respondent’s exception to Master’s report allowing to the complainants $280.73 for expenses of advertisements subsequent to the granting of the preliminary injunction in the case, as damages, should be sustained.

We think it is questionable whether the cost of advertising by a complainant prior to an injunction, warning the public of the counterfeiting of his trade mark by a respondent, can be allowed as damages properly in equity, as we understand that a complainant’s right to recover is limited to the profits made by the respondent from the use of the trade mark. Fowle v. Park, 18 Fed. Rep. 789. But, however this may be, we are clearly of the opinion that the costs of such advertisement subsequent to the granting of the injunction is not allowable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A. 90, 19 R.I. 337, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-lyall-v-carpenter-ri-1896.