2. That the complainant being the proprietor of each and all of said publications duly and fully complied with all the provisions of the law of the United States for copyrighting them and each of them and thereby acquired and now owns the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing and vending the same and each of them; and that the complainant printed on its publication of said copyrighted books and drawing plates and each of them the notice of the granting of such copyrights and each of them required by statute.

3. That the said defendants and each of them have infringed upon the said copyrights and each of them and upon the exclusive rights of the complainant under the same by printing, publishing and selling and causing to be printed, published, distributed and sold within the United States, books, and drawing plates and particularly those entitled as follows, to wit: Books entitled "A College Education by mail. The United Correspondence Schools, New York. Home School of Mechanical Engineering. A Thorough System of Home Study in Mathematics, Mechanical Drawing, Mechanics, Electricity." [Here were inserted the titles of other books and drawing plates.]

4. That in addition to the said infringement of the said copyrights of the complainant, the said defendants and each of them have also unfairly competed with the complainant in business by imitating and causing the imitation of the said publications of the complainant, and particularly in the construction, arrangement and printing of said infringing publications and each of them.

5. That the complainant do recover from the defendants, the profits, gains and advantages which they, the said defendants and each of them, have received or made or which have arisen or accrued to them by reason of infringement of said copyrights and each of them, as well as by said unfair competition; and also the damages which the complainant has sustained by reason of said infringements of said copyrights and each of them, as well as by reason of said unfair competition; and that said defendants and each of them do surrender and deliver up to the Clerk of this Court to be cancelled and destroyed, all copies on hand of said infringing books and drawing plates and each of them.

6. That said complainant do recover from said defendants its costs and charges in this suit to be taxed.

7. That it be referred to John A. Shields, Esq., whose long experience in such matters is determined by the Court to be a sufficient reason for such appointment, as Master, to ascertain, state and report to the Court an account of the extent of said infringement of said copyrights and said unfair competition and of the profits, gains and advantages which the defendants and each of them have received or which have arisen or accrued to them or either of them by reason of infringements of said copyrights, as well as by said unfair competition; and also to assess the damage suffered by the complainant by reason of said infringements and unfair competition; leaving all questions as to increase of damages until the coming in of the report of said Master.

8. That the complainant on said accounting have the right to cause an examination of the said defendants and each of them, and their employees, ore tenus or otherwise, and also the production of the books, vouchers, and documents of the said defendants and each of them; and that said defendants and each of them and their employees, attend for such purpose before said Master from time to time as said Master shall direct; and that the parties and the Master may apply upon due notice to the Court upon the foot of this decree, for such other and further order of instruction as may be necessary; and that when he shall have taken an account of said profits and assessed said damages, he shall return the same to this Court for further action.

9. That a perpetual injunction be issued in this suit strictly commanding and enjoining said defendants and each of them and their and each of their servants, agents, attorneys, employees, workmen and confederates, from directly or indirectly publishing, printing, selling or exposing for sale, or otherwise disposing of or giving away, or causing or being in any way concerned in publishing, selling or exposing for sale or otherwise disposing of or giving away the books, sheets, papers or documents hereinbefore referred to, or any books, sheets or other papers or documents infringing or containing said copyrights or either of them, or any part thereof or like or similar to those hereinbefore set forth.

HOYT W. WHEELER,

Judge.

FORM LXV.-DECREE FOR INJUNCTION AND ACCOUNTING IN

TRADEMARK CASE.

[Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 221 U. S. 580; in which the author was counsel.]

[TITLE]

This cause coming on to be heard on November 11, 1907, upon Bill, Answer and Replication, and full Proofs of the respective parties (comprising the Testimony of numerous witnesses who were subjected to crossexamination, as well as Exhibits), and Philip Mauro, Esq., for Complainants, and Charles Howson, Esq., for Defendant, having been heard both orally and by printed briefs and the Court being fully advised in the premises; now, therefore, upon consideration thereof and on motion of Complainants' Solicitor, it is this day:

1. ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that the word-symbol "CHARTREUSE,' as applied to liqueur or cordial, is a good and valid trade-mark, and in this country has been and now is the sole and exclusive property of the Carthusian Monks or Fathers ("PERES CHARTREUX'') complainants herein; and that the said word-symbol "Chartreuse" accompanied by the facsimile signature of L. Garnier, as set forth in U. S. Trade-Mark Certificate No. 3,377, registered in the U. S. Patent Office January 25, 1876 (reregistered January 29, 1884, as No. 10,897), and in U. S. Certificate No. 3,989, registered September 12, 1876 (re-registered January 29, 1884, as

No. 10,898), and as appearing upon "Complainant's Exhibit Bottle of Chartreuse sold by Batjer & Co.,'' constitute good and valid trade-marks, and in this country have been and now are the sole and exclusive property of said complainants the Carthusian Monks and Fathers ("PERES CHARTREUX''); and that in this country the said complainants still have the right, and the exclusive right, to use the said marks, or any of them, upon liqueurs or cordials manufactured by the complainants.

2. It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that the defendant herein the Cusenier Company has infringed the said trade-marks and each of them, and has violated complainants' rights in the premises, by importing and causing to be imported, selling and causing to be sold, and offering for sale and causing to be offered for sale, in the United States, liqueur or cordial not manufactured by the complainants herein, but purporting to be "Chartreuse" and put up in packages having affixed thereto the trademarks above referred to.

3. It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that defendant herein the Cusenier Company has been guilty of unfair competition with complainants by importing and causing to be imported, by selling and causing to be sold, and by offering for sale and causing to be offered for sale, in the United States liqueur or cordial not manufactured by complainants, but put in bottles, dress, etc., resembling in all substantial respects the bottles, dress, etc., hitherto employed by complainants in marketing their genuine Chartreuse; and particularly by selling or offering for sale the bottle of liqueur now on file in this Court as "Complainants' Exhibit, Defendant's Liqueur."

4. It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that defendant, its associates, successors, assigns, officers, servants, clerks, agents and workmen, and each of them be and they hereby are, perpetually enjoined from using in this country or in any possession thereof, in connection with any liqueur or cordial not manufactured by complainants, the Trade-Mark "Chartreuse" or of any colorable imitation thereof, or the fac-simile signature of L. Garnier, or any colorable imitation thereof, or any of the trademarks above referred to, or any colorable imitation thereof; and they and each of them are likewise perpetually enjoined from importing or putting out or selling or offering for sale, directly or indirectly, within this country, any liqueur or cordial not manufactured by complainants, in any dress or package like or simulating in any material respects the dress or package heretofore used by complainants, and in particular from making use of any bottle or label or package like or substantially similar to "Complainants' Exhibit, Defendant's Liqueur," being the bottle now on file as an exhibit in this Court, and from in any wise attempting to make use of the good-will and reputation of complainants in putting out in this country any liqueur or cordial not made by complainants.

5. It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that the matter be referred to John A. Shields, Esq., as Master, to take the usual accounting and report to this Court with all convenient speed the amount of defendant's profits by reason of the infringements and wrongs above referred to,

together with the quantity of the infringing article now in possession or control of defendant or of any of its officers, servants, or privies.

6. And it is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that complainants do recover from defendant their taxable costs herein; and that execution issue for the same and for the amounts found due on the accounting. (Signed) C. M. HOUGH,

U. S. J.

FORM LXVI.-DECREE OF INJUNCTIONS AGAINST MONOPOLY.

[230 Fed. 524.]

"This cause came on to be heard at this term and was argued by counsel: and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz.:

(1) The defendants, George Eastman, Henry A. Strong, Walter S. Hubbell, and Frank S. Noble (hereinafter called the individual defendants), and Eastman Kodak Company of New York and Eastman Kodak Company of New Jersey (hereinafter called the corporate defendants), have combined, conspired, and participated in various transactions directly affecting the trade and commerce among the several states in photographic supplies, consisting of cameras, films, plates, and photographic paper, with the purpose and intent of unduly and unreasonably suppressing competition and restraining and monopolizing such trade in violation of the act of July 2, 1890, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies." Thereby the corporate defendants have engrossed and monopolized, and will engross and monopolize, between 75 and 80 per cent, of such trade, and accordingly attained, and now hold, an illegal monopoly thereof, which in and of itself, as well as each and all of the elements composing it, whether corporate or individual, whether considered separately or collectively, violates sections 1 and 2 of said act of July 2, 1890. Said monopoly was induced by wrongful contracts with regard to raw paper stock, by preventing the trade from obtaining such stock, by acquiring competing plants, businesses, and stock houses, dismantling acquired plants, and restraining the vendors from re-entering the business, by imposing on photographic dealers arbitrary and oppressive terms of sale, and other regulations inconsistent with fair and free dealing, and arbitrarily enforcing the same through the establishment of a system of espionage and the keeping of records of violations, with a view of penalizing dealers, by limiting the number of dealers, and in general by suppressing competition by the foregoing and other means.

"(2) The individual defendants, and the corporate defendants, their subsidiaries, and their successors, together with their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, and employes, are hereby severally enjoined from continuing or carrying into further effect the monopoly herein adjudged illegal, or any of the contracts, conspiracies, restraints on trade, terms of sale, regulations, or practices, or any similar acts, which induced said monopoly, or which might in the future restrain commerce in photo

graphic supplies among the states, or induce or prolong an unlawful monopoly of such commerce.

(3) The monopoly herein adjudged illegal shall be abrogated, and to that end the business and assets of the defendants, Eastman Kodak Company, a corporation of New Jersey, and Eastman Kodak Company, a corporation of New York, be divided in such manner and into such number of parts of separate and distinct ownership as may be necessary to establish competitive conditions and bring about a new condition in harmony with law; and the defendants shall file with the clerk within 90 days from the entry of this decree a plan for such separation and division for the consideration of this court. In the event this case is appealed and the decree superseded within 60 days from the entry thereof, the time within which the defendants shall file said plan is hereby extended to 60 days from the filing of the mandate of the Supreme Court with the clerk of this court. Jurisdiction is retained by the court to make such additional orders or decrees as may be necessary to carry this decree into effect.

"(4) Inasmuch as trade in cinematograph film and foreign trade in photographic supplies are not covered by the petition herein of the United States of America, no decree in regard to such subjects is made herein, but without renouncing the power and duty of this court to deal with all the property and business of every character of the corporate defendants in effecting the abrogation of the monopoly herein adjudged illegal.

'(5) Nothing in this decree contained shall prevent the defendants, or any of them, from the institution, prosecution, or defense of any suit, action, or proceeding involving any of their property or rights.

"(6) The petitioner shall recover from the defendants the costs of this suit to be duly taxed herein.

(7) The injunction granted by the second subdivision of this decree shall take effect 60 days after the entry of this decree, in case no appeal is taken from it. If an appeal be taken, and the decree be superseded, its operations shall be suspended until such time as shall be fixed in the final decree of this court entered on the mandate of the Supreme Court.'' For another form, see U. S. v. Southern Grocers' Ass'n, 207 Fed. 434.

FORM LXVII.—PETITION FOR REHEARING.

[Denied. Colliery Engineer Co. v. Ewald, 126 Fed. 843. The author was counsel in opposition.] [TITLE.]

To the Honorable the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Southern District of New York:

Your petitioner, the complainant, respectfully shows as follows:

1. The bill of complaint in the above cause was filed on the 19th day of August, 1898, alleging infringement by the defendants of various copyrights owned by the complainant; answer was filed putting in issue the validity and ownership of said copyrights and the infringement thereof;