Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1871-05-10
Browns TrOcheS vs.. Browns BFOn-
chialS.

Anterior T. and Geo Frank Brown Of
Boston having applied for a preliminary
injunction based on a bin i'll Charcery
against Nathaniel X Brown Ut Burlington.
who for seven years resided and did business
in Montpelier. hearing was Lad at Cham
bers before his Honor Judge >mailey on
wednesday last. The counsel ON the TART
Of the orators were Messrs. b F. Rice OF
New York city, and Daniel Roberts and y
R. Hard Of Burlington. Far TIE defendant
Henry Billiard, f. }. Phelps and Gov Stew
art. Without further preface the case will
be fully understood from the opinion dcliy-
cred by Judge Smalley, after full hearing.
which is as follows, reported in tine Free
Press:
This is bill IA equity IN favor If Ather-
ton T. Brown and George Frank Brown.
parties doing business in Boston. Mass. t.r-
der the firm name and stylc of John
Brown < Son vs Nathaniel X Brown. "a
wholesale druggist in this city Ia I-GI
the detendent commenced the manufacture
Of an article Of medicine put up in "a form
which ii is claimed violates the rights of
John /. Brown x Son and which hc sold as
the same article as that Of the orators. thus
causing fraud not only upon them lut
also upon the public The answer Of the
defendant adnIts the making OF a similar
species Of medicine to that ct the orators
but denies that he has attempted in any
way, to violate either the rights Of the ora
tors or to impose upon the public. lie az
serts that the ora tors put up their medicine
in parcels Of four different sizes or forms
only one of which, and that a small box
commonly used by all druggists for putting
up dry medicines, could the defendant b..
said to have Initiated. As to whether the
contriyances OF the defendant were calcula-
ted to mislead the public, he would compare
the facts in the present case WI those of
the somewhat famous English case of roit
VS.. Day, and also those IN the case of Bard
man vs. Meridian Britannia Co, 80 Conn
4O2,) the judgment OF the court in the last
of which cases he considered to BE- carving
the law far in favor OF the complainauts
az was IOSsi lie In the first case, the oulv
difference In the two labels used was the
substitution of different drawing in the
centre, and the words 90 II Holborn Hill
for o. high lI0iborn, both labels being ex-
actly of the same size, color, and type La
the latter case, both labels were OF the same
size and color, and the same figures we're
used for the same classes OF spoons, the only
difference in them being the substitution OF
the respondents name for the petitioners.
and the insertion OF a single WORT in the de-
scription of the article The rules laid down
by the court in these cases were substantial
ly those adopted by the court IN the case of
- The Amoskeag Manu- lacturing Co vs.
Spear, e Sand. Sup. Ct. r., 1922 aad
are briefly as follows
Fira.-That a trade mark emitting THE
appropriation to protection ia its exclusive
use, must, by word, letter, sign, figure or
symbol, designate the true origin or owner
ship Of the goods
S eOnd.-rhat where a trademark is vio-
lated, the essence of the wrong done consists
in the sale OF the goods of one manufacturer,
as and for the goods of another, and can
only be predicated on a copy or imitation OF
those portions of trademark which truIv
designate the origin or ownership Of the
goods.
Taird.-Tnat similarity to entitle the
originator to the protection Of the law, must