It appears from the exhibits that Thomas Edison, was one the original incorporators and a subscriber the capital stock the defendant, taking shares shares with which the defendant was authorized commence business the other two original incorporators and subscribers being Franklin Everhart and Gardner Kimball, taking respectively the remaining shares.
Law school personal statement writing service
That Immediately after Its organizatlon the defendant herein proceeded to sell and manufacture ink tablets under the name Wizard Ink Tablets, and are continuing and also are manufacturing and selling the public a device called a Magno-Blectric and advertises the same extensively throughout the public prints, which sald advertisements are worded as falsely and fraudulently lead the public belleve that your orator is the inventor the said device, wbile the truth Is that your orator In no way connected with the Invention the sald device and has no knowledge It, but charges the same wortbless and simply a means for obtaining money from tbe publie for a wortbless article the misuse your orator's name and taking advantage your orator's reputation as an Inventor, and your orator presents as exhibits In connection with this blll three advertisements the said alleged device eut respectively from the New York their advertising matter, and In reply a letter was received dated October, the prlnted and engraved headlng of whlch shows the advertising the Wizard Ink Tablet above referred and your orator presents as an exhibit with this bill eomplaint the said letter from the Thomas Edison Jr.
Chemical admission college essay help Company dated October, marked Exhibit That your orator has a son named Thomas Edison, who now about thlrty years age that your orator's sald son was employed your orator In your orator's varions Interests for a short tlme that since that tlme your orator's eald son has had no regular occupation, but as your orator Informed and believes, partlally supports himself trading hls name and selling the use hls name varions unprinclpled persons, who use the sald name for the purpose defrauding the public that your orator's said son while was in your orator's employ made no practical Inventions, and your orator satisfled that has made no invention since that time. The bill further alleges that the above mentioned son the complainant has sold certain persons, stated have had connection with the incorporation the defendant, including the above named Franklin Everhart, the use the name Thomas Edison, for the purpose enabling the said persons defraud the public the use the name Edison, and that your orator's said son has never invented any ink or ink tablets and has never invented any such device as that described as Magno-Electric Vitalizer in the said advertisements or any similar device.
The bill further alleges That the said actions the sald Thomas Edison, Chemical Company and its officers, agents and employees deceive and defraud the public and greatly injure your orator's reputation as an inventer passlng off the public sald Ink tablets and Maguo-Electric Vitalizer as the invention your orator when the same have not been invented or manufactured your orator, and your orator Is in no way connected with the manufacture or sale the same whlch injury and damages your orator cannot adequately compensated for an action in a court law. The complainant includes in his options one for an injunction as That the said defendant, its ofHcers, attorneys, agents and employees may restrained the Injunction thls court from using the name Edison In connection with or as a part its corporate tltle or in connection with its business, or its letter heads or advertlsements circulated or published and from using the word Wizard in connection with the said ink tablets manufactured and sold and from holding out in any way that your orator the Inventor or in any way connected with the sald ink tablets so sold or manufactured and from holding out in any way that your orator the Inventor or in any way connected with, the said Magno-Electric Vitalizer sold or manufactured and that a provlslonal or prellminary injunction may Issued english literature essay help restralnlng the sald easy essay help defendant, its officers, attorneys, agents and employees as aforesald during the pendency this suit Reference made a suit heretofore brought in this court the complainant herein against the Edison Chemical Company, a corporation other than the defendant herein, in which a decree was entered prior the filing the present bill. The parties, however, buy thesis online uk were different, and the decree was entered consent. That case cannot operate as an estoppel against this defendant nor in any manner prejudicially affect The bill nowhere alleges that the complainant manufactures or sells any articles resembling those manufactured and sold the defendant, or that those manufactured or sold the latter are in their appearance or nature such as indicate that they were manu factured the complainant. There no charge unfair competition in trade or violation a trade-mark. Briefly stated, the bill proceeds the assumption that, the value the complainant's inventions largely depending upon his widespread reputation as a scientist and unusually successfui inventor valuable devices and processes, any fraudulent practices the defendant causing the public believe that worthless or inferior articles, devices or processes made or sold the defendant were, contrary the fact, made or sold the complainant, not only are a fraud upon the public but injuriously affect the complainant's reputation and income and constitute a wrong which should restrained in equity at his instance, there being no adequate remedy at law.
College thesis writing help
The above assumption requires as one its essential constituents that should appear from the bill and exhibits made part thereof, that the defendant has resôrted some fraudulent means causing or tending cause the public entertain such false belief.
The articles which the complainant charges the defendant with fraudulently passing upon the public are a device known as a Magno-Electric Vitalizer and certain ink tablets called and put forth the defendant, as Wizard Ink Tablets.
Aside from the exhibits, the bill clearly does not sufficiently charge any fraudulent practice the defendant tending best college writing services deceive the public with respect the origin, ownership or control the Magno-Electric custom essay writing reviews Vitalizer. with the Magno-Electric Vitalizer, nor does the bill in any manner base upon exhibit E any charge fraud far as that device concerned. The next question relates the use the defendant the word Wizard in connection with the ink tablets manufactured and sold Does the bill sufficiently charge any fraudulent employment that term the defendant causing or tending cause the public believe that such tablets were manufactured or sold the complainant? The bill alleges that reason his inventions and discoveries your orator has for a long time past been referred in the public press and popular usage the name Wizard, and that said name Wizard has been for long a time associated in the public mind with your orator, that the said name, if used in connection with any new device, appliances or invention, at once associated in the public mind with your orator, and that immediately after its organization the defendant herein proceeded sell and manufacture ink tablets under the name Wizard Ink Tablets, and are continuing and that the said actions the said Thomas Edison, Chemical Company and its officers, agents and employees deceive and defraud the public and greatly injure your orator's reputation as an inventor passing the public said ink tablets and Magno-Electric Vitalizer as the invention your orator when the same have not been invented or manufactured your orator, and your orator in no way connected with the manufacture or sale the same. The above statements, together with exhibit E above referred include ail the allegations relative the use the defendant the word Wizard. It unnecessary and would improper consider in this suit the allegations relating the use the name Wizard the Edison Chemical Company, a corporation other than the defendant, and by certain individuals named in the bill, in connection with the manufacture and sale ink, ink tablets and ink powder. The bill does not aver that the complainant the only person who has been referred in the public press and popular usage the name Wizard, or that such name has been associated in the public mind with the complainant exclusively or that such name had not, before and during the time the occurrence the several matters set forth in the bill, been used in connection with one or more articles merchandise or that the defendant at any time stated or advertised that the ink ts was selling were manufactured the complainant.
On these points the bill should have been clear and explicit. The nature this suit peculiarly required particularity averment. As before stated, does not involve the violation a trade-mark, or any unfair competition in business. If sustainable at ail, must rest the ground fraud. A demurrer does not admit the truth generai allegations fraud, but only the facts set forth as constituting the alleged fraud and ail reasonable deductions from them. So, too, where a bill avers a legal inference which the facts stated therein not justify, a demurrer while confessing the facts will not considered as admitting the correctness the inference. It true that alleged in paragraph that the said actions the defendant deceive and defraud the public and greatly injure your orator's reputation as an inventer, Fraud upon the public and injury the complainant thus appear a deduction or inference made the complainant from the said actions.