In 1855 Pierre Alphonse Arnoult & his wife Clotilde, manufacturers of cardboard & playing card in Paris, at 24 rue des Fossés-Saint-Victor, transferred ownership of their company to their son Gustave. Pierre Alphonse died the following year and was buried on April 25th, 1856. In 1862, due "to the condition of her son", widow Arnoult had cause to take back ownershop of the company & by deed executed before the notary Mr. FOULD, on June 1862, registered the company "VEUVE ARNOULT ET FILS" as a general parnership between herself and her son.
In 1864 the company was sued by Ms. Breteau for the counterfeiting of her "Grand Game of Society", a game of 54 cards with accompanying text of five volumes she had published in 1845, the which Gustave Arnoult had counterfeited with a partial text and published as the "Grand Oracle" in 1858. Upon a seizure of goods it was discovered that over a thousand counterfeit decks with book had been produced, of which 188 sets of book and decks of cards remained. The remnant was awarded to Ms. Breteau together with a sum of 200 francs for damages, with an additional 500 francs should they fail to return the copies within two weeks. The company had already been declared dissolved in a judgment rendered by the Commercial Court of the Seine earlier the same year [?], and the widow Mrs. Arnoult was "entrusted with the liquidation with the broadest powers that this capacity entails."
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... -4602-1-55
Gazette nationale ou le Moniteur universel - 1862-07-12 - p.1050
1499 — By deed executed before Mr. FOULD, the undersigned, and his colleague, notaries in Paris, on June 1862, registered:
Mrs. Clotilde CHARLEMAGNE, widow of Mr. Pierre-Alphonse ARNOULT, the said lady owner, residing at 8, rue de L'Ancienne Comédie, no. 29, Paris,
And Mr. Gustave ARNOULT, her son, cardboard manufacturer, residing in Paris at 24, rue des Fossés-Saint-Victor,
Have formed a commercial company with the exclusive purpose of operating the cardboard and playing card factory that Mr. Arnoult managed under the lease set forth in said deed, the sale of all its products, and all related transactions.
That this company would be a general partnership.
That the corporate name and signature would be widow ARNOULT ET FILS.
That the signature would belong solely to Mrs. Arnoult, widow.
That Mr. Arnoult Jr. would have no right to use it.
That the company would begin on June 30, 1862, and end on June 30, 1870, except in cases of extension or dissolution provided for in said deed.
That the company's registered office was located in Paris, at 24 Rue des Fossés-Saint-Victor, on the premises where the factory was established.
Signed: FOULD.
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k ... pHwh9SGZAQ
CIVIL COURT OF THE SEINE (3rd ward).
Presiding: Mr. Vignon.
Hearing of November 22.
LITERARY PROPERTY. — GRAND GAME OF SOCIETY — SECRET PRACTICES OF Ms. LENORMAND. — ASTRO-MYTHO-HERMETIC cards. — COUNTERFEITING.
For a work to be counterfeited, it matters little whether the counterfeited work has no scientific or literary value, whether it contains true or false facts, sensible or unreasonable deductions, or whether it is merely a summary and collection of facts and deductions printed in ancient works. During the year 1845, Ms. Breteau published, using a nom de guerre (Comtesse de ***), a work entitled: Grand Jeu de Société. — Pratiques secretes de M'l Lenormand — Explication et application des Cartes Astro-Mytho-Hermetique. This work consists of five volumes, in which the rules of geomancy, palmistry, craniology, the language of flowers, etc., etc., are set out, using fifty-four colored cards.
Ms. Breteau, who had nothing but praise for the results of this publication, realized in 1858 that the results were no longer the same and that the work was no longer selling as much; she had all the more reason to be surprised, since works of this nature always sell very well, regardless of their literary value. She learned that Mr. Arnould (sic) had already counterfeited her work by copying the fifty-four engravings that comprised it and by writing, in the form of explanations, an abridgment that was only a textual but partial reproduction of this work.
Miss Breteau then arranged for a seizure of goods to be carried out on March 10, 1864, and it was found that there had been a print run of over a thousand copies. The damage was certain, and was all the greater, according to Ms. Breteau, because the manufacture of the Game of Society had cost more than 12,000 francs. She filed a claim for 2,000 francs in damages against Mr. Arnould, widow Arnould, who had succeeded him, and Mr. Franquin, Mr. Arnould's legal counsel.
Widow Arnould claimed that she had been completely unconnected with the manufacture of the counterfeit game; that, in fact, the counterfeit work had been published in 1858 alone and that, given her son's situation, she had only taken over the management of her business in 1862.
Mr. Arnould Jr., for his part, maintained that his good faith was just as evident; that he had one day received a visit from a Mr. Gastelin, a fortune-teller, who brought him a game without an author or publisher's name; that this game was no longer commercially available, this man suggested to him the idea of making a new edition by adding a handwritten explanation that he had taken from the five volumes published under the name Countess of ****. Mr. Arnould could therefore not suppose that there was any literary property there; he further maintained that this commercial operation, far from having happy results, had led to pearls. He therefore requested that Ms. Breteau's claim was declared inadmissible, relying primarily on the fact that Mrs. Arnould had all unsold copies removed from the market.
The Court, after hearing Mr. Truinet, counsel for Ms. Breteau, Mr. Péronne, counsel for the widow Arnould, Mr. Arnould Jr., and Mr. Franquin, on the submissions of Mr. Isambert, the Imperial Advocate, rendered the following judgment:
"The Court:
"Whereas Miss Breteau proves that she had the work with engravings entitled: Grand jeu de société, pratiques secrètes de yile Lenormand, vc., etc., composed, printed, and published in 1845, as well as the set of fifty-four colored cards, and that the formalities for deposit have been completed." were filled out the same year and in accordance with the law; is therefore admissible in her action;
"On the merits:
"Whereas, according to the minutes of March 10, 1861, two copies of the small volume entitled: Book of the Great Oracle, as well as two decks, each consisting of fifty-five colored cards, were seized from the stores of which the widow Arnould now acknowledges herself as the sole owner;
"That it is certain, and is not denied, that these cards are the exact reproduction of those seized, and that the text of the small volume is composed solely of word-for-word borrowings from the multi-volume work by Mademoiselle Breteau;
"That the fact of counterfeiting is therefore established;
"That it matters little whether the counterfeit work has more or less literary or scientific value and whether it contains true or fabricated facts and sensible or unreasonable deductions;
"That it matters little whether it is only the summary and collection of facts and dedications printed in old works, or whether the work it required constitutes a property right that the law has established;
"With regard to Arnould:
"Whereas he acknowledges that in 1858, when he was sole owner of the business that his father and mother had transferred to him in 1855, he had the typeset and colored, and that he published and sold the seized work and cards by borrowing them from the accounts of Miss Breteau;
"With regard to the widow Arnould:
"Whereas she acknowledges having taken over this business, having kept and put up for sale the said work and the said cards, as well as the rest that resulted from the seizure carried out on March 10, 1864; that she cannot legally invoke her good faith, given that the work had been registered, that she had continued to keep abreast of her son's operations, and that she had herself taken over the business and the merchandise as early as 1862, and finally that she sold the work herself;
"Whereas there is no reason to authorize an additional seizure of the defendants' warehouses, but that it is sufficient to accept the offer made by the widow Arnould to return to the plaintiff the one hundred and eighty-eight copies that remain to her, and that this return must be taken into consideration in setting the amount of damages, which the Court has the necessary information to assess;
"For these reasons,
"Validates the seizure carried out according to the report of March 10, 1864, and orders the return to the plaintiff of the copies of the book and the seized cards, as well as the lithographic stones used to print these cards;
"Orders the widow Arnould, Gustave Arnould, and Franquin, in their capacity, to return them to the young lady. Breteau the one hundred and eighty-eight copies of the book and cards that the widow Arnould declared remained in storage and which she offered to return, and further orders them jointly and severally, and as additional damages, to pay the plaintiff the sum of 200 francs, and in the event of the defendants failing to deliver the copies within two weeks of the date of service of this judgment, orders them jointly and severally to pay in replacement the sum of 500 francs;
"States that there is no reason to order the insertion of this judgment;
"On the remainder of the pleas, grounds, and conclusions of the parties, dismisses them;
"Orders the defendants and Franquin, in their capacity, to pay costs."
Source:
"Gazette des tribunaux : journal de jurisprudence et des débats judiciaires " - Issue of December 6, 1865 - page 1162
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k ... eQjzPepu2Q
My thanks to @Heather Diane for bringing this trial report to my attention.