Humphreys Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Hilton
| Decision Date | 14 March 1894 |
| Parties | HUMPHREYS HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE CO. v. HILTON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Henry J. Homes (Alfred Taylor, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Wise & Lichtenstein (Morris S. Wise and George L. Huntress, of counsel), for defendant.
The complainant and its predecessors in business have for many years manufactured, advertised, and sold homeopathic remedies, consisting of 35 specifics for various ailments. They have advertised these remedies in various books and pamphlets treating of hygiene and diseases, and containing directions for the use of the remedies. The remedies are sold in vials, each of which is labeled 'Humphrey's Homeopathic Specific;' and upon the label is also printed a number, and the name of the ailment for which the remedy in the particular vial is intended, such as 'No. 1, Fever;' 'No. 5, Dysentery;' 'No. 10, Cholera,' etc. In the advertisements the remedies are referred to by the numbers, which run from 1 to 35, inclusive. The defendant also manufactures, advertises and sells homeopathic remedies, consisting of 14 specifics for various ailments. He advertises them in books and pamphlets. He sells them in vials, each of which is labeled 'Dr. Hilton's Specific,' and upon the label of each is printed a number, but not the name of the ailment for which the remedy is intended. His numbers run from 1 to 14 inclusive, and in his advertisements the specifics for the different ailments are referred to by their respective numbers. In his system the different numbers do not stand for the same remedies as in the complainant's system. Thus, his No. 1 is a remedy for pimples, his No. 5 for canker, his No. 10 for inflammation of the bladder. The complainant insists that the defendant is guilty of unfair competition and that it has a trade-mark in the different numbers, to and including 35, as applied to homeopathic remedies, which the defendant infringes by the use of any or all of his 14 numbers.
Neither the complainant, its predecessors, nor the defendant was the first to adopt a system of putting up and selling medicinal remedies in connection with books or advertisements by which the remedies were separately numbered, the numbers placed upon the vials or packets, and the remedies referred to by their number in the books or advertisements containing directions for their use. It suffices to refer to the books and remedies of Dr. Samuel Thomson, author of the 'Thomsonian Materia Medica and Botanic Family Physician.' The defendant doubtless adopted it because of its convenience. He had a right to do so. The case is destitute of any indication that he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Autoline Oil Co. v. Indian Refining Co.
...Trainer, 101 U. S. 51, 25 L. Ed. 993; Coats v. Merrick Thread Co., 149 U. S. 562, 13 S. Ct. 966, 37 L. Ed. 847; Humphreys' Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Hilton (C. C.) 60 F. 756; Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 94 F. In the case at bar the adoption of the trade-mark "F" is so rec......
-
Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Scharf Tag, Label & Box Co.
... ... 362; Shaw Stocking ... Co. v. Mack (C.C.) 12 F. 707, 712; Humphreys ... Specific Co. v. Wenz (C.C.) 14 F. 250; Gillott v ... Esterbrook, 48 N.Y. 374, 8 Am.Rep. 553; ... Humphrey's Specific Co. v. Hilton (C.C.) 60 F ... But the ... contention here is not for a ... with the foregoing cases are Humphrey's Homeopathic ... Co. v. Hilton (C.C.) 60 F. 756, and Smith & Davis ... Mfg. Co. v ... ...
-
Germanow v. Standard Unbreakable Watch Crystals, Inc.
...F.Supp. 759; affirmed, 1 Cir., 100 F.2d 1021;Stevens Linen Works v. William & John Don & Co., 2 Cir., 121 F. 171; Humphreys' Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Hilton, C.C., 60 F. 756;Keller, Inc., v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 7 Cir., 298 F. 52;Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Scharf Tag, Label & Box Co., 6......
-
Bechik Products v. Federal Silk Mills, 7172.
...Pneumatic Tool Co., 7 Cir., 298 F. 52; Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Scharf Tag, Label & Box Co., 6 Cir., 135 F. 625; Humphreys Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Hilton, C.C.S.D.N.Y., 60 F. 756. In the following cases, however, the use of the same system of numbering was one of the factors, along with oth......