Source: The Federal Reporter
Source type: government document
Document type: case report, U.S. Circuit Court
Document title: “Halstead et al. v. John C. Winston Co. et al.”
Volume number: 111
Publisher: West Publishing Co.
Place of publication: St. Paul, Minnesota
Year of publication: 1902
“Halstead et al. v. John C. Winston Co. et al.” The Federal Reporter. Vol. 111. St. Paul: West Publishing, 1902: pp. 35-36.
full text of report; excerpt of book
Click here to view a subsequent case report.
From title page: The Federal Reporter: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and Circuit and District Courts of the United States.
From title page: Permanent Edition.
From title page: November, 1901-January, 1902.
Halstead et al. v. John C. Winston Co. et al.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. October 21, 1901.)
I—T R O —G .
A temporary restraining order will not be granted to prevent the issuance by defendants of circulars describing a book published by them which is written by the same author and upon the same subject as a book previously published by complainant, where such circulars contain no legally objectionable statements, and no fraudulent conduct on the part of defendants is shown, merely because such circulars may possibly confuse the public and cause some injury to complainant.
In Equity. On motion for restraining
Hector T. Fenton, for complainants.
Jos. T. Bunting and Wm. C. Hannis, for respondents.
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge. It is,
no doubt, possible that the circulars described in the bill may do the complainants
some  harm. The public may confuse the
book referred to by the circulars with the book published by the complainants,
and the sale of the latter may thereby be injured. But the possibility of confusion
is due to the fact that Mr. Halstead is the author of both these books, which
are on the same subject,—the life and public career of President McKinley; and
since the circulars, which refer to the first book written by Mr. Halstead,
and not to the book published by the complainants, contain no legally objectionable
statement, and since no evidence of fraudulent conduct on the part of the defendants
has thus far been made to appear, I see no sufficient reason for interference
by the court at this stage of the proceeding. For the present, the complainants
must themselves take the trouble to set right such confusion as may exist, and
to explain clearly to the public that the defendants’ circulars do not refer
to Mr. Halstead’s second book, but to the book which was first issued in 1896.
No question of copyright or unfair competition is involved.
The restraining order is refused.