The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-08-04
THE VALENTINE
COMP ANY WINS
Injunction Asked by Richmond Com
pany Is Granted.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
The Use of Name Of Valentine o" any
Extract or Preparation of Meat or
Meat Juice Prohibited to
the Defendants.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

It viii prove OF interest to Know that
the Valentine Meat Juice Company, OF TINS
city, has won its suit against the Valentine
Extract Company before the English SUI
preme Court Of tJud!cature. The following
report of the proceedings is from the Lon
don Times:
The Valentine Meat Juice Company VS..
the Valentine Extract Company.
This was an appeal against the decision
of Mr.. Justice Stirling which was reported
in the Times OF November ID last and III
16 the Times Law Reports. p. 50. Inc
plaintiffs who are an American company
and proprietors and manufacturers OF te
we'll known extract called Valentine
Meat Juice" sought by this action an IN
junction to restrain the defendant COM
pany from carrying on business as manu-
facturers or vendors of any preparation
of extract Of meat or meat juice under any
name or title of Which the name 'Valen-
tine or Valentines formed part, and to
restrain the defendant c. r. Valentine
from carrying on any such business under
any such name or title without clearly
distinguishing that business from the bus
mess Of the plaintiffs
The business of the plaintiffs was origin
ally founded in 1871 by Mr.. Mann Z. Valen-
tine who had discovered a mode OF pre-
pairing meat juice, and the business has
always consisted and still consists entirely
in the manufacture of that preparation. In
1892, on the death of the founder, the bust
ness passed into the hands OF the plaintiffs.
They have no depot and employ no agent
in England, although they make annual
consignmcnts 10 a few firms in this coun-
try to the extent Of upwards of a quarter
of a million bottles of their meat juice.
Their preparation is mainly, but not eXclu-
sively, used by sick people and invalds.
1t is a liquid, and has always been sold in
bottles of one SIZE and Of a distinctive
shape, and under some designation OF
which the name valentine" formed part
In some cases it has been sold or referred
20 as Valentine simply. Until 1888 there
was other preparation OF meat on the
market connected with the name of Val
entne. The defendant company was IN
corporated in this country in 1897 with a
capital of e4000 divided into 1900 preferred
shares Of 81 each and LOGO deferred shares
of a like value. and having amongst It's
objects the carrying on Of the business OF
meat extract or meat juice manufacturers
and vendors THIS company was promoted
by the defendant Charles Richard Naien-
tine, and he was its managing director. In
1885 he was in the employment a manager
of the Colonial Consignment and DlstrlDut-
ing Company, who are dealers in colonial
produce. including at one time extract OF
meat manufactured according to Lleb1S S
and other processes. Some time in 1855 the
defendant Valentine conceived the idea OF
putting up solid extract of meat in the
form Of 2lobules enclosed in a protecting
cover so that il could be carried about In
small quantities and be made readily avail
able as food by travellers and others. For
this process he subsequently, obtained
patent, which. in 1897. ne sold to the de-
PENDANT company for f144o. 10 be paid as
to $500 in cash and the balance in deferred
shares. The memorandum of association
was signed by seven clerks who We're nom
inees of the defendant Valentines, but the
IN, J, oir1fn of
Justice Stirling, altogether what is ordi-
narily understood as a ''one man COM
pany.'' The defendant Valentine left the
service of the Colonial Consignment Com
pany in June, 1888, and the defendant COM
pany then commenced the sale of meat
globules. They We're at first packed IN
boxes bearing labels describing them as
Valentines Valtine Meat GloDul1s," the
word '.Valtne" being registered trade
mark which was acquired by the company
on its formation from! the defendant Val
entine Since the commencement of this
acton the description on the labels has
been altered to "Valtine Meat Globules.'
The plaintiffs did not complain that the
defendants had got up their goods so as to
resemble the plaintiffs but only that the
defendants had made use of the name
Valentine in such a way as to deceive
the public into the belief that the goods
sold by them were manufactured by the
VI u
the action, but without costs. In his opin-
ion there wee features of suspicion in the
case, but he came to the conclusion that
want of good faith on the part Of the de-
PENDANTS had not been established. The
plaintiffs appealed
Mr.. Moulton, @. c. Mr.. Swinfen EadE.
@. c., nnd Mr.. Sebastian were for the
plaintiffs; Mr.. Upjohn, @. c., and Mr.. A
Sims were for the defendants.
C6,lyt allowed the lDDpal.
The Master Of the Rolls said that no
doubt the case was one of considerable
Importance. He would first express his
view of the law applicable 10 the case.
The law has been expressed in different
language by different judges, but there
was no difference IN principle The prin-
cple could not be better stated than /.
was by the present Lord Chancellor in
.Eeddaway VS.. Bantam QS96 y. c.. Ut
page POD, where he said: II believe the
principle of law may be very plainly
stated, and that is that nobody has any
right % represent his goods as the goods
of somebody else" And in the snTe case
the late Lord Herschell sad Cat page 2lo):
- he name of a person, or words forming
part of the common STOCK OF language,
may become SO far associated with the
goods Of a particular maker that ii is
capable of proof that the use of them by
ficauon by another manufacturer would
deceive a purchaser into the belief that he
WIS getting the goods of y when he was
really getting the goods of B. In a case
Of this description the mere proof by the
plaintiff that the defendant was using
name, word or device which he had
adopted TO distinguish his goods would
not entitle him to any relief. He could
only obtain it by proving further that the
defendant was using it under such cir
cumstnnces or in such manner as to put
off his goods as the goods of the CLAIM
tn And Lord Mecnaghten EXPRESSED
himself to the same effect though no. in
the same language. In the opinion of His
Lordship (the Master of the Rolls the
only difficulty in the present case was in
the application of these principles to The
facts. a strenuous effort was made by
Mr.. Upiohn in his able argument to draw
distinction between a case in which the
name, Of the use Of which the complaint
was made was the name OF the person
who was carrying on the business and q
case in which 1t was not. In His Lord
ships opinion there was no difference IN
principle. In either cnse the principle
stated by Lord HalSbury must be applied