Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

“ At the time complainants claim to have adopted the word 'Tycoon' as their trade-mark for the particular species of tea dealt in by them, it was not an abandoned trade-mark, previously used by some other person or firm, to designate a particular quality of tea, but it was, nd had been for many years, in general and common use, as a term descriptive of a class of teas introduced into the American market,-a term which all men engaged in the tea business had an equal right to use, and which belonged to no one individual, either as a trade-mark or a trade label. ”

“ Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 324, is applicable to the claim of the complainant in this case: 'He has no right to appropriate a sign, or a symbol, [or a name,] which, from the nature of the fact which it is used to signify, others may employ with equal truth, and therefore have an equal right to employ for the same purpose.' See, also, Manufacturing Co. ”

“ Rep. 166; Tobacco Co. v. Finzer, 128 U.S. 182, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 60; Stachelberg v. Ponce, 128 U.S. 686, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143. Even conceding that the complainants may claim a trade-mark for the combination of the diamond and the words inclosed in it, as described in their application to the patent-office, there was, upon the authorities above cited, clearly no trade-mark in the word 'Tycoon,' considered by itself. ”