New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-04-29
EiSner- r-MendeIson Concern Lost
Suit Involving $50, 900 DAM
ages for Using Name
"Hunyady."
NEVER MADE SETTLEMENT
Friedman Issues Statement
Covering Deal with Drug
Observation-Disclosures to
Be Formed and Poor
Treated Free.

Well sir the great deed vas done
yesterday. An arrange mt, II was
announced by DR.. Friedrich Franz
Friedman, had been definitely COM
pleted between him and Mortz Eisner,
of the Esner- Mendelson Drug Com
pany. providing for the preparation,
distribution and use Of his turtle germ
tuberculosis remedy in the United
States.
Neither party to the transaction
would state the price paid, nor would
either side deny that DR. Friedman
has SIS. 900 cash already tucked away
In his pockets. with more in the form
Of royalties on fees for treatments to
come later.
This IS not the first time Mr.. Eisner
has dealt in foreign proprietary reme-
dies. Page 10, of volume 119. United
States Reports. shows that for some
time prior to 1900 the Eisner- -Mendelson
Company, Of West Virginia. was dis
tributing in this country mineral
water under the name Hunyadi Mat
vas. and tha. the concern was enjoined
by the widow Of Andreas Saxlehner
from selling water under name In
which the word Hunyady appeared in
bottles bearing labels initiating those
used by the plaintiff.
The court record also shows the COM
panv was sued for $4,000 damages, and
that a judgment was obtained against
the defendant company.
Saxlehner First Used Name.
The courts opinion states it appeared
from the evidence that Saxlehner was
the first TO appropriate and use the
name Hunyadi, and then goes on 10
say:
Second. that in the shape of his bottles.
the design of his capsules and MS laueis
he wa, originally entitled TO be proIecteS
against fraudulent imitation. Ihiiu.
that defe ndant is selling water under
the name OF Hunyadi Matyas In bottles
of the same size and shape as the PAIN
tifts, containing a label and three paral,
lei panels OF the same co.ors' size ana
general design as those OF the plainun.
Fourth. that their general appearance
is such as to deceive the casual pur-
chaser. and that such BOTTLES and labels
were evidently designed for the purpose
OF imposing the defendants waters upon
the public as those Of the plaintiff.
4 moments comparison OF the two la
bells viii show that while the printed
matter upon each is different from that
upon the other. their general appearance
Is such as would be likely TO mislead the
public into the purchasing of one for the
other.
The defence Of abandonment Of his
rights TO the distinctive label on the
part of the plaintiff which was put up
by the defendants the court declared
was not sustained. inasmuch as there
was only slight evidence adduced OF the
intention 70 abandon it by Andreas
SaXlehner.
After the decision was handed down
assessing the damages asked, with costs
upon the defendants, a second suit was
brought against the individual men,
bers Of the firm. In this suit it was
alleged the plaintiff had been unable
TO collect the judgment owing to the
manner in which the defendants, who
were doing business in different com
panies incorporated in different states
under the name OF Elsror & Mendelson
manipulated their stock.