Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1871-05-12
q. s. Circuit Court.
.. . Crcu1t C0uTI.
BLows's rEocHEs vs.. browns nRoEcHIALs.

OOA4N
BLowE's TRocHEs vs.. BROWNS nRoKcHIALs-
On Wednesday another interesting hearing
was had al Chambers before Hs Honor Judge
Smallsy II came I'D in the form Of q motion
for preliminary injunction based upon bill IN
Chzneery brought by Messrs. Anterior T. and
Geo. Frank Brown Of Boston, Mass. VS. Ma
tbauiel K Brown Of this city, asking for an
Injunction against the defendant for violation
Of the orators trade mar. Messrs. B. F. Rice
Of NsU York CITY and Daniel Roberts Gni {. T.
Hard Of this city were the counsel Tor the orators
Henri Ballard, E J. Phelps and Gov Stewart
counsel for the defendants.
h appeared from the bill Of complaint that II
1850 john 1. BroEn < Son. Of Boston, Mass,
commenced the manufacture and sale OF the
medicine for throat troubles known as browns
Bronchial Trochez, which, BY extensive &1ver-
tisng, became widely and favorabiy known II
1866 Nr Juo I Brown retired from the rfm
and was succeeded by biz sons-ihe orAiors-
VINO continued the business, nov grown 70 Dc .
very lucrative and extensive enc In the montn
Of January. 1867 the defendant, VINO was tnen
wholesale End retail druggist IN Montpelier
commsuced manufacturing medicine Tor
similar purpose. which be intro1uced under
the nsma Of " Browns B-onchisls.' The
orators claim that tine defendant copied the
shape Of their tablets, and the general style o.
their PRINTED devices and sTmo-ls UPON the Ia
bels sruuud the boxes which contain their me1l-
cine AMI claiming the name, l4bsl, and devices
a. their TRADEMARK, they asked that the de-
iendani be enioined from further use OF them.
TO tins the defendant replies by denying
each allegation and insisting that the business
which be has carried Oh has been lezitima1elT
and honestly Prosecuted thai be har rizat %
use bis own name snd that neither he u0r bic
~rn uan % arTu
means OF false representations 10 pass OF his
medicines az thoEe Manufactured by ire orators.
after hearing the counsel FOR both parties lis
Honor reserved his decision until TnurEdsy
morning when he gave It substantially A. foi-
lows
OPINION ET JUDGE sI4LLEI-
This is bill il equity IL favor Of Anterior
= Brown and George Frank Brown, parties
doing business IL Boston, Mass under the Hrm
name and STYLE Of John J. Brown son vs.
Nathaniel K Brown, Wholesale druggist 70 TINS
civ IN 1867 the defendant commenced me
manufacture @ 81 article o. medicine put ID 70
q form which u is claime1 violates the rights or
John brown O. Son and which be sold a. me
same article as that Of the orator., thus causing
a fraud not oLiT upon then but also upon the
uuuHc The ausWe- Of the defendant admits
the rlzkiur o. a similar species Of u31lcine o
that Of the orators, du- denies thar be mas a.
TEMPTED. n any way. 20 vi0late either me rights
Of the orltors, or % impose upon tla puols.
He asserts that tne orators put NJ thei- ue0 cine
in parcels Of four different s.zef o. forms only
one u which and ths- small box common
usel by al irucg,sts for putting up DRY med
clues could the defendant be SAID o. have -l-.-
tateL As % whether the contrvances Of the
defendant were calculated 90 uises1 the public,
be- would compare The facts 10 The present ca5e
with those o. the somewhat famous English case
Of Crof. vG Day, aul also those 10 the case Of
Bo4riusl vz. Meridian Britannia Co., l55 Conn
4H-.I The Judgment Of the c0u-- 10 the lzsJ o.
which cases be considered Co be carrying the laW
as far in fsv1- OF the compliments a. vas posi-
BE- II the first cAse, the only difference 10 the
two labels used va IRE substitute @. q differ
eut GraFiuE IN me centre, and the words CD l--
Hcl1c-a I- l1r 90 High H0lboru. l1-h ls1sls
being exactly o. the same s,ze, color au- -v7-.
IN NE latter case roth labels we're OF the sane
size and c0l5r. ami the same figures were usa1
i1r the same classes Of spoons, the ONLY dl1ei
eucs u then heinr The substitution Of the ~
s1oule1t's name i1- the petitioner, ana the H.
ssruou CT "a single word % the description GO ile
article The rules laid down ry the court DO
these ca=z1 we're Substantially those 2l1p-l- 1T
me coar- in the case Of d" The A1osEez- Mann
featuring .l- vs spear . sand. sap. c. Il.
j AM are d--ay g. follows
..-- - = ..- --.l--S--- ,,.s
- - - -
Ies -uafa zee -rus origin Or ownership 90 ne
goods.
Second inst F1erg @ trademark is violated,
80 -----,.-----.--- =. - - r.
-5. e -----.- - - -. --.-.7-..-a5 -
--- 20 ---.-s.-..- - 49,. -----.--i. - . --s3--
----5 ,.-.--- ----- -5..--- f.. .----- ~ oy-rs--
--s-. - IN $3.50
T.-f .--. s.-----.--- -- s---.1s -ia --i---
.--..-. .---.-------s ~ - - -. ~.
~ -.-----.--.-, 49, ~
--.. ~ 49, s.. -
.. ~. ~ ..-- % ~ - 80. g.
---.-.. 80 - ----
r ------ .T-l--.. Ell. --4. ban. +.-
.--s i----- II -. II i, -s-.-.-7ls. -7,--s,.-
-rre- - 5000 If d i--- ,i--,,--ss -,.s N rl--
- ,,-i. - ~ --....t - ~ $780,
j. 49,. 81. 49,. - -.-.- - - --i- .
s--L ~ -.--.. ~. -.. $500 ,-s--5-.- m
~ 49,. - -. + ~ a. ---.--- 49, 49, 80 .
,ss-s --s- ,-ss- NJ ~. f--- -..s-r ~ -..l- H. .
,--f-- ,t.-- b. H.. ~. -.
r T--s-.--- = ----. ---- 70 d, ----.
--,-- r.,.-s---- ~ q 49, : -.-,-.- ~ az, ~
---.- ----- 5- -.-,-.- - -. -------- 80
-r-... -..-.-..- 80. 49, ----- ~ 49,. $3.50 -r5-
B. -.-..---. 49, --l7-7.--. --=5.-- -.
81 r.-.~ dad
III. --t.5. --'-..-.r -..------ -, --------.-
- - -55-..- - cha
49, - - - --5- ,--I- -
-. ------.-5 - q. -. --,-- l-... p
- ~ .5--.s =. 100000 = So -. $780,
,--- ~. - .-s ~ $1,000 ID. - -
.t--7.s. er- 3 ,-----f-,r yi5-,+,-- If mo- g.,
49,. --.-. --.- ~ .--------..-5 -. -----l
III. .- ,-.----- 49,. II --5.-.---7 H.. -
--.----- --,--,r------ BE- 49, - $1,000
E. d
~ ~ -s--T5,- 5s-.-. a. $500 e. $3.50
.-5.---.- - $3.50 .t.-i-
-----.---- - -l=-- 49,
-.-- -...-=.--5 ~ - - -
$500 = - - - - ~ -i----.----s
- ---.--- 80 -. L-=---
5.-.-.. ~ .. ~ - -
,....- - 90 s-5.- -.
-. 800. s .t-s r.
----,l-- -s ~ ---.--,-- -.- - :. T. ,-..-.
- --t---
-. E-.--5--.- -..-- o.. -.----s.--.. ..
-.-5- II ,-.- ~. - - -i5--.---f-.-
b. III. .-- - ~. - - - - r..
,r.s,s---,,.--, ~ - Sc - -. .sr-----.
r---L-'- 90 %. az ~ 80 -- -
- ..-. - t--
81 - - - : t.-t--.
:, - - -. 49,
gIs g. b. ...- ~ 80. ~ - t---.5.-7
-s.r OIL. e. -..- b. ~ -..- 81 l.
-- NJ. .---.--.-t ~ b.. 49, 2 - b
--- ~ - =
.-1-- APp.lF %. eener-- a7n'aae.Hsn. O. VII
tu- ezauina-ion I si to is,s.r even M s,igb-s.-
luilEri1u ci tns type or the text used while or
the box q the respondent only appears the DE-
-.--.--s--- ~ ~ - ------, We -l-
OF ,ne -asre-rirs -1s5ioiDs. - ii.-.--- 81 .-i
Che cusl- .iN. 80 Washington s-res-. Boston.
the other 60 bu1-.u--cr vermont