A Trade-Mark Must Not Misrepresent the Quality, Composition, Character, or Origin of the Product
A fraud cannot be legalized, and a misrepresentation of any kind, made by a trade-mark, renders it invalid.
"Syrup of Figs" was held to be invalid as a trade-mark, and not protectable, in a case where the product was shown to have only a trace of fig syrup.
The title "American Sardines", applied to fish which were not sardines, was considered a misrepresentation, and was refused registration.
(Note: Even if not a misrepresentation, it would be considered invalid, as it is descriptive.)
In the case of Wrisley v Iowa Soap Company, it was held that the name "Old Country Soap" used on soap and advertised in such a way as to lead people to believe that it was made in Europe, was deceptive and protection to the name could not be given.
A trade-mark that may be considered good or bad, depending on the way you look at it.
An interesting case is that of Memphis Keeley Institute v Leslie E. Keeley Co. (144 Fed. R. 628; 155 id. 964).
The Memphis Keeley Institute made a contract with the Leslie E. Keeley Company to represent the Keeley Company in Tennessee in treating inebriates. The Keeley Company agreed to sell the Keeley Cure to no one in Tennessee except through the Memphis Institute.
After a while the Keeley Company claimed that the Memphis Institute had violated its contract, and refused to furnish any more of the treatment to the Memphis concern.
The Memphis Institute continued to advertise itself as the representative of the Keeley Company, and to assert that its treatment was that of the Keeley Company.
A coined word used as a trade-mark.
Suit being brought, the Memphis Institute alleged that the complainant's representations of the ingredients of its remedies were untrue and misleading. The Keeley Company had extensively advertised its treatment as the "Gold Cure". It was shown in court that it contained no gold in any form; that in the beginning chloride of gold had been used in one instance, and that it had almost killed the patient; and that special bottles of the cure had been prepared with gold in them in order that a chemist might be deceived; and that this chemist's analysis of the spurious bottles had been extensively advertised as showing that gold was in the remedy.
A simple and effective trade-mark.
On the evidence of these misrepresentations, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court, and dismissed the complaint.
The doctrine of law that misrepresentation is a bar to protection of a trade-mark or a trade-name has been clearly established by many decisions similar to the above.