The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-03-02 00:00:00

WHAT A "TRADE SECRET" MEANS.

In the lone Court the cause of "James e. James "has
been heard, and was a salt for an injunction and account in-
stituted by the executors of the Lieutenant Robert James,
the inventor of the well.known secret preparation known as
Lieutenant James's horse blister."

The defendant, Robert Joseph James, is a son of
one of the plaintiffs, and a grandson of Lieutenant
Janie,, and has for some years past manufactured an
article identical in composition with that sold by the
plaintiffs, which he also calls " Lieutenant James's
horse blister," and sell in pots almost identical in
size, and with directions for use almost a verbatim
copy of those of the plaintiffs. It appeared that
the defendant became acquainted with the secret
of the composition and the mode of
.prepara.
tion when he was a boy of 14 by seeing his father
mix the ingredients. When he grew up he commenced
the manufacture, in conjunction with Mr. Southee,
the other defendant, and he claimed, as a member of
Lieutenant James's family, the right to manufacture
the article in question and sell it as " Lieutenant
James's blister." He denied, moreover, that he was
under an implied pi omise not to use the secret, as the
plaintiffs alleged. It appeared, however, that he had
published advertisements, signed " Robert James,"
cautioning the public against spurious imitations, and
asserting that no ointment sold as "Lieutenant James's
blister" was genuine without the trade mark—a horse's
head—on the pot, and the signature of " Robert
James," his full name being Robert Joseph James.
These advertisements occasioned the suit.
. . .

The Solicitor-General and Mr. Montague Cookson,
for the plaintiffs, while admitting the right of the de-
fendant to say that his article was prepared from the
original recipe, contested his right to use the name of
Lieutenant James's horse blister," to the use of which
they said that the plaintiff's were exclusively entitled,
as the successor, in business of the original inventor;
and they observed on the resemblance between the
pots and the directions for use in either case, and on
the circumstance of the defendant, whose Christian
name is Robert Joseph, signing himself "Robert,"
like the original inventor.
The Master of the Rolls, before hearirg counsel for
the defendants, said that in the case of &trade secret, as
distinguished from a patented process, any person who
was so fortunate as to find out the secret, provided he
found it out by fair means, might make and sell the
article after the death of the original inventor without
let or hindrance. Such articles after the death of the
original inventor became articles of commerce, and
anybody who knew the secret might inake and sell
them. He thought that a grandson of Lieutenant
James, who had without any fraud on his part possessed
himself of the recipe, might lawfully mix the ingredients
and sell the preparation as what it really was—viz,
" Lieutenant James's blister ;" only he must not do
this in such a manner as to induce the public to sup-
pose that he was that which he was not —the suc-
cessor of the original inventor. He had acted on the
same principle in two suits to protect the exclusive
rights of the proprietors of " Lazenby's Harvey
Sauce" and "Cock's Reading Sauce," where he held
that the defendahtii were entitled to sell sauces under
those names, which had become generic titles, but
were not entitled to do anything to induce the public
to believe that the sauces they were selling were manu-
factured by the proprietors of the original recipe. He
was at present of opinion that the defendant was at
full liberty to sell "Lieutenant James's blister." but
most not use the signatureof "Robert James," because
that amounted to an assertion that his preparation
was that of the original inventor, nor assert in his
advertisements that his is the "only' genuine " blister.
Sir Richard llaggallay, Q.C., and Mr. Townsend,
for the defendant, submitted to make the alterations
suggested by his lordship, lint contended that the signa-
ture of " Robert James" formed no part of the trade
mark, and that the Raise " .Joseph" had not been
omitted with a view of deceiving the public. At the
conclusion of their argument,
The Master of the Rolls made a decree to restrain
the defendants from using the name of "Robert"
singly, without" Joseph "or ".T.," and from publish-
ing any circular or advertisement stating that 'none is
genuine without the trade-mark, or horse's head on the
pot, and the signature of Robert James," and also
from asserting or suggesting that the plaintiff's pre-
paration is spurious, or not genuine. No costs on
either side.