The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-24 00:00:00

X 36,080,920 l
BANKING DEPARTMENT.

Proprietors' Capi••
£14,553,000
Rest
Public Deposits
(including Ex-
chequer, Sav-
ings' Banks,
Commissioners
of National
Debt, and Div.
Accounts ..... 3,251,923
Other Deposits.. 22,649,575
Seven Days and
other Bills 669,173

Governmt. Secu-
rities(including
Dead Weight
Annuity) .... £14,269,046
Other Securities 16,810,986
Notes 12,212,050
Gold and Silver
Coin

£44,412,065

.044,412,065

IMPORTANT TRADE-MARK CASE IN CHAN-
CERY.—(Before Vice-Chancellor Spragge.)—Davis v.
Kennedy.—The plaintiffs in this case are the well-known
firm of Perry, Davis, and Son, of Providence, H. 1.,
U.S. of America, and of 17, Southampton How, Holborn,
London (W. C.), and the action was brought at the May,

1867, term of the Court of Chancery in Hamilton, Canada

West, to restrain the defendant, a resident of Hamilton
Lom the use of their trade-mark, " Pain Killer." The
hearing occupied the Court two days, and the Vice-Chan-
cellor, after withholding his decision till September 3d,
1867, then gave it in favour of the plaintiffs, granting a
perpetual injunction against the defendant, and ordering
him to pay to the plaintiffs all the profits he had made by
the use of their trade-mark, and all the costs of the suit
&c. The following extracts front the judgment will suffi-
ciently explain the case and show the justice of the
learned Vice-Chancellor's decision : " The defendant
contends that what the plaintiffs call a trade mark is not
properly a trade mark, but a term of description of the
article which he prepares. Ido not agree in this. It is
a quaint combination of words never probably used
together before, forming a name by which the inventor
desired his preparation should be made known, and cal-
culated (as he rightly judged) from its quaintness to fix
itself in the memory of the general public. I come
now to the principal question in the cause—namely,
whether the defendant has infringed thaeplaintiffs' trade-
mark. He has been for several years the manufacturer and
venior of a preparation to which he ascribes many of the
virtues which are claimed for the plaintiffs, and to which he
has given the designation 'Pain Killer.' If he had used
the designation alone it would be a flagrant inhingement
of the plaintiffs' right. But it is contended that the words
are so used as not to mislead purchasers. The defendant's
article is spoken of by druggists in Hamilton as first known
in the trade within the last five years. The defendant says
great
prefixreputation
o f tht
n a ma
en d
of a
tvhe re ymlaakr e
re.
he made it and advertised it in a local paper in Dundas some
years before. It is evident,rtahiant
Kit willaserossocmureetli:kensowwinthuangaticil
the latter date ; but even at the earlier date the plaintiffs'
pointed out between the appearancespectielytheatiocflethoof
are pointed
labels in which respectively thoaef
article had
w theiobtainedthonameut
arsthand that of the defendant vare sold. To the
tbsshooa
lilt eti
plaintiffs
bottles
siann
Differencesadnenetsridff
eye there is an obvious difference when the two are seen
together, and they are not called by the same name, the
plaintiffs' article being called Perry Davis's Vegetable
Pain Killer, while the defendant's. . called The Great
lime
Remedy, Kennedy's Pain Killer.' The grievance of
the complaint is, of course, the use of the word Pain
Killer.' " The judgment concludes thus I have not
thought it necessary to go throu3h the case on the law of
trade-marks, which is now well understood. The applica-
tion of it to particular cases is the difficulty. I will only
refer to the language. of Lord Crauworth in Farina v.
Silverlock ; it is peculiarly apposite to the case before me.
The practice of appropriating the trade marks of others
has been reprobated by various judges, and I have no
doubt that Lord Cranworth used the word 'steal' to mark
his sense of its gross impropriety. In Collins Company
v. Cowan, Sir W. Page Wood took occasion to characterise
it in language not more severe than just. I cannot
cone ive, ' he said, of anything short of indictable
offences more discreditable than this course of proceeding.'
The plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction on the terms
prayed for by their bill, and to an account as prayed. The
decree will be with costs."— Weekly Spectator, Hamilton,
October 9, 1867.
LAMENTABLE ACCIDENT AT INVERNESS.--TIVO
young men, Joseph Groves, aged 27, and Robert Groves,
aged 22, brothers, were drowned on a loch in the neigh-
bourhood of Inverness on Wednesday forenoon. Joseph
was skating, and went on to a part of the ice under which
was a spring, when he went down. Robert ran towards
him, and the ice also broke under him. Endeavours were
wade to rescue them, but of no avail. They were got out
half an hour ate' wards by means of a boat-hook, but life
was extinct. The deceased were taken home in a cart to
their widowed mother.