Supreme Court of the United States

Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co.

179 U.S. 42 · 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1841 · 21 S. Ct. 16 · 45 L. Ed. 77

October 15, 1900 · Docket 30, 31, 32

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~183 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
The court noted that no intentional fraud was alleged against Siegel‑Cooper and still found infringement, rejecting dismissal solely for lack of fraud.
Headnote 2
The opinion states that the innocent conduct of Siegel‑Cooper does not exonerate it from the infringement charge, emphasizing that innocence does not bar liability.
Headnote 3
68.11.8 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Injunction Law
The court expressed that an injunction should issue against every defendant, even those who acted in good faith and whose sales were minimal.
Headnote 4
The lower court dismissed the claim against Siegel‑Cooper on the ground of no fraudulent conduct, a dismissal the Supreme Court found improper.
Headnote 5
68.7.1 Remedies and Equity Law > Disgorgement, Accounting, and Gain-Based Remedies Law > Accounting for Profits Law
The opinion cites authorities such as Millington v. Fox and Edelsten that recognize accounting of profits as an appropriate equitable relief in trademark cases.
Headnote 6
68.8 Remedies and Equity Law > Equitable Defenses and Bars to Relief Law
The Court noted that the Siegel‑Cooper case involved no allegation of intentional fraud, yet the infringement claim could proceed. Authority for liability without fraud is found in Brown on Trade Marks, § 386.
Headnote 7
68.8 Remedies and Equity Law > Equitable Defenses and Bars to Relief Law
Even though Siegel‑Cooper acted innocently, the Court held that innocence does not exonerate the company from the charge of infringement. This follows the principle articulated in Brown on Trade Marks.
Headnote 8
68.8 Remedies and Equity Law > Equitable Defenses and Bars to Relief Law
The opinion states that an injunction should issue against all defendants, even though Siegel‑Cooper acted in good faith and sales were small, relying on Moet v. Couston.
Headnote 9
68.8 Remedies and Equity Law > Equitable Defenses and Bars to Relief Law
The Court cited Millington v. Fox, Edelsten v. Edelsten, and Brown on Trade Marks to affirm that accounting of profits is an available equitable relief despite good‑faith conduct or low sales volume.
Headnote 10
68.8 Remedies and Equity Law > Equitable Defenses and Bars to Relief Law
The lower court dismissed the claim against Siegel‑Cooper for lack of fraud and declined to require an accounting; the Supreme Court reversed, holding that such procedural rulings were erroneous.
Headnote 11
67.7.9 Real Property Law > Easements, Licenses, and Access Rights Law > Easement Law
The Court held that the Siegel‑Cooper Company sold water bearing the plaintiff’s “Saxlehner” marks, and although no evidence of intentional fraud was presented, the infringement claim was not dismissed.
Headnote 12
67.7.9 Real Property Law > Easements, Licenses, and Access Rights Law > Easement Law
The opinion states that the fact Siegel‑Cooper acted innocently does not exonerate it from the charge of infringement.
Headnote 13
67.7.9 Real Property Law > Easements, Licenses, and Access Rights Law > Easement Law
The Court indicated that an injunction should issue against all defendants, even though Siegel‑Cooper acted in good faith and the sales involved were small.
Headnote 14
67.7.9 Real Property Law > Easements, Licenses, and Access Rights Law > Easement Law
The Court concluded that, although an injunction was appropriate, Siegel‑Cooper should not be compelled to account for profits because of its innocent conduct and limited sales.
Headnote 15
68.11.14 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Permanent Injunction Law
The court noted that the Siegel‑Cooper Company faced no charge of intentional fraud and the evidence showed no fraudulent conduct, yet the infringement claim could proceed.
Headnote 16
68.11.14 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Permanent Injunction Law
The opinion states that the Siegel‑Cooper Company’s innocent behavior does not exonerate it from the charge of infringement, reaffirming that innocence does not shield a marketer from liability.
Headnote 17
68.11.14 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Permanent Injunction Law
The Court expressed that an injunction should be issued against all defendants, even though the Siegel‑Cooper Company acted in good faith and its sales were small.
Headnote 18
68.11.17 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Prohibitory Injunction Law
The district court dismissed the infringement claim against Siegel‑Cooper because it found no fraudulent conduct. The appellate court noted that liability arises from the use of the protected mark, not from intent, and that an injunction may still be appropriate.
Headnote 19
68.11.17 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Prohibitory Injunction Law
Although Siegel‑Cooper acted in good faith, the court held that innocence does not exonerate the company from the charge of infringement and that liability may still attach.
Headnote 20
68.11.17 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Prohibitory Injunction Law
The court expressed that an injunction should issue against all defendants even though Siegel‑Cooper acted in good faith and the sales were small.
Headnote 21
68.11.17 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Prohibitory Injunction Law
The opinion indicated that, because Siegel‑Cooper appeared to have acted in good faith and the sales were limited, the court thought it should not be required to account for gains and profits.
Headnote 22
68.11.17 Remedies and Equity Law > Injunctions and Restraining Orders Law > Prohibitory Injunction Law
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Circuit Court of Appeals and sent the cases back to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York for additional action.

Opinion

Me. Justice Brown Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

These three cases were brought against retail dealers, and defended by the Eisner and Mendelson Company, who imported and furnished- the defendants with the water sold by them. The bills charged the defendants generally with unlawfully selling bitter water under labels simulating Saxlehner’s blue and red label, and under the name “ Hunyadi.” The answer was substantially the same as that in the main case, and the same record of proofs was used.

In the case against the Siegel-Cooper Company there was no charge of an intentional fraud, and the court found there was no evidence of fraudulent conduct on its part, and dismissed the ■ bill as to that company. As to the other two cases the court found that the clerks in charge of their stores, in response to special requests for Janos water, wrapped up and delivered Matyas water purchased of the Eisner and Mendelson Company. In other words that they had palmed off the one for .the other.

We think that an injunction should issue against all these defendants, but that, as the Siegel-Cooper Company appears to have acted in good faith, and the sales of the others were small, they should not be required to account for gains and profits. The fact that the Siegel-Cooper Company acted innocently does not exonerate it from the charge of infringement. Moet v. Couston, 33 Beav. 578; Millington v. Fox, 3 Myl, & Cr. 338; Edelsten v. Edelsten, 1 De Gex, J. & S. 185; Brown on Trade Marks, § 386.

The deeree of the Circuit Court of Appeals in these cases are also reversed, and the cases rema/nded to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings, etc.

Case brief

Citation data as of July 22, 2026

Summary

The plaintiffs, owners of the “Saxlehner” blue and red marks and the “Hunyadi” name, sued three retail dealers that sold bottled water bearing those marks after the water was supplied by the importer Eisner & Mendelson. The trial court dismissed the claim against Siegel‐Cooper for lack of fraudulent intent and refused to order an accounting of gains, although it found that clerks at the other two stores had “palmed off” one brand as another and issued an injunction against them. On appeal the defendants argued that their conduct was in good faith, that no fraud was shown, and that the modest sales volume should preclude an accounting. The Second Circuit held that trademark‐infringement liability does not depend on proof of fraud or knowledge and that innocent or good‐faith conduct is no defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed that an injunction may be granted against any infringer regardless of intent or sales size. It also held that an equitable accounting of the infringer’s profits is available even when the infringer acted innocently and the sales were small. The appellate court therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Siegel‐Cooper claim and its denial of an accounting, and remanded the three actions for further proceedings consistent with those principles. No subsequent trial‐court findings or final awards are reported in the opinion. The decision thus establishes that retailers who sell products bearing another’s protected mark are liable for infringement and may be compelled to disgorge profits, irrespective of good‐faith conduct or the volume of sales.

Updated July 22, 2026

Statement of Facts

The plaintiffs, owners of the “Saxlehner” blue and red labels and the “Hunyadi” name, brought three separate actions against three retail dealers that sold bottled water. The retail dealers were supplied, through the Eisner and Mendelson Company, with the water that the plaintiffs alleged was being sold in violation of their trademark rights. Eisner and Mendelson imported the water and furnished it to the defendants for resale. The plaintiffs’ complaints charged the defendants with unlawfully selling “bitter water” under labels that simulated the Saxlehner blue and red marks and under the name “Hunyadi,” thereby infringing the plaintiffs’ trademarks. In the action against the Siegel‐Cooper Company, the plaintiffs did not allege intentional fraud. The trial court found no evidence that Siegel‐Cooper engaged in fraudulent conduct and dismissed the bill against that company. In the other two actions, the court found that store clerks, responding to special requests for “Janos” water, packaged and delivered “Matyas” water purchased from Eisner and Mendelson, effectively “palming off” one product as the other. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from further infringing sales and, in the two cases involving the non‐Siegel‐Cooper dealers, an accounting of gains and profits. The defendants, through Eisner and Mendelson, asserted that they acted in good faith; Siegel‐Cooper specifically contended that it had no intent to defraud and therefore should not be liable for infringement. The trial court, while inclined to issue an injunction against all defendants, declined to order an accounting against Siegel‐Cooper on the ground of its good‐faith conduct and the small volume of sales. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s rulings and remanded the matters to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings. Note: The opinion excerpt does not identify the plaintiffs by name, does not specify any monetary damages sought, and provides no detail on any affirmative defenses other than Siegel‐Cooper’s claim of good‐faith conduct.

Updated July 22, 2026

Procedural History

Trial Court (Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York) – The court dismissed the complaint against the Siegel‐Cooper Company for lack of evidence of fraudulent conduct and declined to order an accounting of its gains, although it indicated that an injunction should issue against all defendants. The court found the clerks of the other two retailers had “palmed off” one brand of water as another and, on that basis, granted an injunction (but no accounting) against those two dealers. No monetary damages or profit‐accounting awards were entered.

Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – The defendants (the retail dealers, including Siegel‐Cooper, and the importer Eisner & Mendelson) appealed the trial‐court rulings, arguing that Siegel‐Cooper acted in good faith, that there was no intentional fraud, and that the sales were too small to justify an accounting. The appellate court reversed the trial‐court’s rulings and remanded the matters to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Result on Remand – The opinion does not disclose any subsequent trial‐court action, damages award, or final resolution after remand; the procedural record ends with the appellate reversal and remand.

The procedural history is therefore incomplete: the opinion provides no detail on any post‐remand findings, final injunctions, or profit‐accounting orders.

Updated July 22, 2026

Issues

I. Substantive Issue(s)

Trademark‐infringement liability – Does a retailer who sells bottled water that bears a plaintiff’s protected “Saxlehner” marks and the “Hunyadi” name, even though the retailer acted in good‐faith and without intent to defraud, incur liability for trademark infringement?

Accounting of profits – Is a retailer who has been found to infringe a trademark liable to an accounting of the gains and profits derived from the infringing sales, notwithstanding that the retailer’s conduct was innocent and the volume of sales was small?

II. Procedural Issue Did the trial‐court err by (a) dismissing the infringement claim against Siegel‐Cooper on the ground that there was no evidence of fraudulent intent, and (b) refusing to order an accounting of gains and profits despite finding that infringement occurred, thereby misapplying the legal standards governing trademark infringement and equitable relief?

Updated July 22, 2026

Judgment

The Court reversed the Circuit Court’s rulings and remanded the three actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings.

Updated July 22, 2026

Holding

Trademark‐infringement liability – A retailer who sells products bearing another party’s protected trademark incurs liability for trademark infringement even when the retailer acted in good faith and without any intent to defraud.

Accounting of profits – A retailer who is found to have infringed a trademark is subject to an equitable accounting of the gains and profits derived from the infringing sales, regardless of the retailer’s innocence or the small volume of the sales.

Procedural error – A district court errs when it dismisses a trademark‐infringement claim solely because the defendant lacked fraudulent intent and when it refuses to order an accounting of profits; such claims may proceed and equitable relief may be granted notwithstanding the defendant’s good‐faith conduct.

Updated July 22, 2026

Rule of Law

Trademark infringement is established when a defendant uses a plaintiff’s protected mark in commerce in a manner likely to cause confusion, and liability does not depend on proof of fraudulent intent or knowledge. Brown on Trade Marks § 386 (2d ed. 1935).

Good‐faith or innocent conduct is not a defense to liability for trademark infringement. Brown on Trade Marks § 386 (2d ed. 1935); Moet v. Couston, 33 Beav. 578 (court).

An injunction may be issued against any party that infringes a trademark, regardless of the infringer’s intent or the size of the sales. Moet v. Couston, 33 Beav. 578 (court).

An accounting of the infringer’s gains and profits is an equitable remedy that may be awarded in a trademark‐infringement action even when the infringer acted innocently and the infringing sales were of small volume. Millington v. Fox, 3 Myl. & Cr. 338 (1902); Edelsten v. Edelsten, 1 De Gex., J. & S. 185 (1900).

Updated July 22, 2026

Reasoning

The court began with the established trademark‐infringement rule that liability arises when a defendant uses a plaintiff’s protected mark in commerce in a manner likely to cause confusion, and that proof of fraudulent intent or knowledge is not required; this principle is set out in Brown on Trade Marks § 386.

Applying that rule, the court found that the retail dealers sold bottled water bearing the “Saxlehner” blue and red labels and the “Hunyadi” name, and that the clerks of two dealers “palmed off” one brand as another, creating a clear likelihood of consumer confusion; therefore the factual predicate for infringement was satisfied.

The court then addressed the defendants’ claim of good‐faith conduct, citing Moet v. Couston, which holds that innocent or good‐faith conduct does not excuse trademark infringement, and reaffirmed that intent is irrelevant to liability; consequently, even Siegel‐Cooper’s lack of fraudulent purpose could not shield it from infringement liability.

Turning to equitable relief, the court noted that an injunction may be issued against any party that infringes a trademark regardless of intent or the volume of sales, again relying on Moet v. Couston; thus the court concluded that an injunction was appropriate against all three retailers.

Regarding an accounting of gains and profits, the court invoked Millington v. Fox and Edelsten v. Edelsten, which recognize an accounting as an equitable remedy that may be awarded even when the infringer acted innocently and the infringing sales were modest; this established the legal basis for ordering an accounting despite the defendants’ arguments.

The trial court’s refusal to order an accounting on the grounds of Siegel‐Cooper’s good‐faith conduct and the small sales of the other dealers was therefore inconsistent with the foregoing precedent; the appellate court inferred that the lower court misapplied the rule that accounting is discretionary but not barred by innocence or minimal sales.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissals and its denial of an accounting, holding that liability and equitable relief attach to any infringer, and remanded the cases for the district court to issue the proper injunction and to determine an appropriate accounting of profits.

Updated July 22, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: None – No justice filed a separate opinion.
Type of Opinion: None – The record contains only the majority opinion authored by Justice Brown; there are no concurring or dissenting opinions.
Summary of Reasoning: No additional reasoning is available because no justice authored a concurring or dissenting opinion in this case.

Updated July 22, 2026

Case Relevance

This decision is significant because it crystallizes the principle that trademark‐infringement liability and the availability of an equitable accounting of profits attach to any retailer who places a protected mark in commerce, regardless of good‐faith or lack of fraudulent intent, thereby directly resolving the substantive issues of whether a good‐faith retailer can be held liable for infringement and whether such a retailer may be compelled to disgorge gains; the holding therefore establishes a clear, general rule—rooted in the longstanding doctrine that intent is irrelevant to infringement—that a retailer who sells goods bearing another’s mark is liable and may be subject to an accounting even when sales are modest, and it applies broadly to trademark actions in the jurisdiction of the appellate court (and, by persuasive authority, to other courts confronting identical factual and procedural contexts). The rule’s scope is not limited to the particular brands or the specific procedural posture of the case; it extends to any similar circumstance where a party, innocent or not, uses a protected mark in a way likely to cause confusion, and it is not confined to injunctions alone but expressly embraces the discretionary equitable remedy of an accounting of profits. Consequently, the case is a valuable authority for pleading or defending infringement actions where defendants argue innocence or minimal sales as a bar to liability or equitable relief, for courts deciding whether to award an accounting, and for policymakers emphasizing that trademark protection does not hinge on the infringer’s state of mind; however, the decision does not address the quantum of an accounting, the standards for determining “likelihood of confusion,” or any limitations based on statutory defenses, leaving those issues for further development.

Updated July 22, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "The fact that the Siegel‐Cooper Company acted innocently does not exonerate it from the charge of infringement."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: citation not available (pinpoint page not provided)
Explanation: This sentence articulates the court’s core rule that trademark‐infringement liability attaches regardless of the defendant’s good‐faith or lack of fraudulent intent, directly supporting the holding that a retailer may be held liable even when it acted innocently.

Quoted text: "We think that an injunction should issue against all these defendants, but that, as the Siegel‐Cooper Company appears to have acted in good faith, and the sales of the others were small, they should not be required to account for gains and profits."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: citation not available (pinpoint page not provided)
Explanation: Although this reflects the lower court’s view, the language underscores the principle that an injunction may be granted against any infringer irrespective of intent or sales volume, which the appellate court affirmed and expanded by rejecting the limitation on accounting.

Quoted text: "Moet v. Couston, 33 Beav. 578; Millington v. Fox, 3 Myl., & Cr. 338; Edelsten v. Edelsten, 1 De Gex., J. & S. 185; Brown on Trade Marks, § 386."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: citation not available (pinpoint page not provided)
Explanation: The opinion cites these precedents to ground the rule that intent is irrelevant to infringement liability and that an accounting of profits is an available equitable remedy, providing authoritative support for the court’s holding.

Quoted text: "The deeree of the Circuit Court of Appeals in these cases are also reversed, and the cases remanded to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York for further proceedings, etc."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: citation not available (pinpoint page not provided)
Explanation: This statement confirms the appellate reversal of the district court’s dismissal and denial of an accounting, demonstrating that the higher court applied the rule that liability and equitable relief may proceed despite a defendant’s good‐faith conduct.

Updated July 22, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Unnamed v. Unnamed · N/ABrown on Trade Marks · § 386 (2d ed. 1935)

Unnamed v. Unnamed · N/AMoet v. Couston · 33 Beav. 578Millington v. Fox · 3 Myl., & Cr. 338Edelsten v. Edelsten · 1 De Gex., J. & S. 185

Unnamed v. Unnamed · N/A

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Metropolitan Amusement Ass'n
141 Ill. App. 89 · 1908 Ill. App. LEXIS 643
Saxlehner v. Nielsen
179 U.S. 43 · 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1842 · 21 S. Ct. 16 · 45 L. Ed. 77
Stevens v. Siegel-Cooper Co.
32 Misc. 250 · 65 N.Y.S. 665
Gray v. Siegel Cooper Co.
111 A.D. 926 · 97 N.Y.S. 1137
Quirk v. Siegel-Cooper Co.
43 A.D. 464 · 60 N.Y.S. 228
Sipp v. Siegel-Cooper Co.
74 A.D. 631

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

October 15, 1900

Docket

30, 31, 32

Precedential status

Published

Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co.

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion