New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-04
ANOTHER TRICK.

Another form of trademark graft is the trick
OF using the phrase of Tate with successor
to- with the intention to deceive the public A
perfumery manufacturer of Paris adopted in 1874
a trademark which became widely known. both in
Europe and America. After his business had
him and began to Manufacture toilet preparations
tons which he had printed on his labels and boxes
were so similar to those OF the original concern
comparison In conspicuous letters the name Of
the old firm was stamped OF the packages, whereas
with, appeared in small almost imperceptioe.
At last the older firm became aroused and OBJ
tanned from Judge Lacombe of the United States
Circuit Court. an injunction against its late with
1t sometimes happens that fight between
down upon his business brings out the fact that
e n nofe n oTg OR less 6 OF an Posor
monstrated that II concern has built up business
cannot expect that the courts viii defend it against
mltatoTs II In; this instance the propretors Of
alleged imitator. The complainants had been upon
product in every English speaking country in the
world except Canada and the United States. They
had distributed eighty three million pamphlets from
house TO house in the United Kingdom They had
published innumerabe musical advertisements,
a. d. in short had flooded the English speaking
The medicine of the defendant was not an
exact imitation. it was alleged, but so nearly like
trial however the defendant brought out Certain
facts which showed that the original cure in
many ways a fraud, that the statements which
had induced the public to such a tremendous extent
TO buy il We're. false and fraudulent One of the
company circulars. for example, said:
s4me {sars back Charles FSrdo eminent sci.
tracts and essences of Australian roots and herbs,
and after long research, he found himself dis
coveIer OF natural vegetable substance which had
the power of acting In the human system in the
same way as natures own animal substance, bile
and which was, beyond all doubt the finest remedy
yet discovered for all liver and digestive disorders.
According to the court this statement was both
false and fraudulent There was no such person an
Charles Forde, the originator of the remedy being
a man by another name: who was not an eminent
scientist and who had scientific training or
standing whatever as chemist or anything else
Instead. he a drug clerk. Furthermore, he had
never investigated the ealing extracts and es-
sences of Australian roots and herbs and had
never made any research and had never discovered
any vegetable substance with medicinal properties,
no vegetable substance being shown to exist such
described in complainant's advertisements
sale druggists in the United States of drugs
which they had in stock The court said that the
business of compliments founded entirely
upon fraud, impudence and advertisement, and
whatever might be the merit of their remedy, il
evident that IL would never have taken hold
the public IL had but for the fiction Of its
being the product Of a great discovery of an n
cient Australian remedy by eminent scientist
using the most scientific methods and apparatus.