Humphreys' Specific Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Wenz
| Decision Date | 24 November 1882 |
| Citation | 14 F. 250 |
| Parties | HUMPHREYS' SPECIFIC HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE CO. v. WENZ. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
J Frank Fort, for defendant.
NIXON D.J.
The bill of complaint filed in the above case alleges that the complainant is a corporation, organized under the laws of the state of New York, by the name and title of 'The Humphreys' Specific Homeopathic Medicine Company;' that for upwards of 20 years past it has manufactured and sold a series of 35 homeopathic specific medicines or remedies, which have been put up in bottles containing thereon labels and wrappers having printed thereon the words 'homeopathic specific,' in connection with numbers in a series, and particular reference to diseases or infirmities for which the medicines in the bottles are intended as specifics; that the complainant's designation of said series of homeopathic specific medicines is by the words 'homeopathic specific,' and by numbers in a series as follows: No. 1, fever, congestion, inflammations; No. 2, worm fever or worm disease; No. 3, colic, crying, and wakefulness of infants; No. 4, diarrhea of children and adults; No. 5 dysentery, gripings, bilious colic; No. 6. cholera, cholera morbus, and vomiting; No. 7, coughs, colds, hoarseness bronchitis; No. 8, toothache, face-ache, neuralgia; No. 9 headache, sick headache, vertigo; No. 10, dyspepsia, biliousness, costiveness; and so on, upwards, in the same serial order, to 35; that by reason of the use of numbers in serial order, in connection with the words 'homeopathic specific,' the books and pamphlets of the complainant, descriptive of its homeopathic specifics, and the directions therein contained relating to their use, could be referred to by the defendant in the sale of his 'homeopathic specifics,' and such books could be used with the defendant's medicines to a large extent in the treatment of diseases, with the serial order of specifics put up and sold by him, equally as well as with the serial order of specifics put up and sold by the complainant.
The bill further claims that the complainant was the first to use specifics in homeopathy, and the first to adopt the term 'homeopathic specifics,' and to use in connection with these words numbers to designate the medicines and the diseases for which such medicines are intended as specific; that such adoption is not descriptive, but denotes origin and ownership; that the use of said numbers in connection with these words it wholly arbitrary, as symbols to denote origin and ownership; that such use has become so acknowledged and acquiesced in by the public that the specifics are now known by numbers only, and are ordered and called as such, instead of by the names of the particular complaints or diseases or remedies therefor; and that it medicines thus put up in bottles labeled as 'homeopathic specifics,' and numbered in series, have acquired a high reputation throughout the United States and have commanded and still command an extensive sale, and have become a great source of profit to the complainant.
The charge is that the defendant has infringed the complainant's trade-mark by taking bottles of about the size of complainant's, putting labels thereon, and printing in conspicuous letters the words 'homeopathic specifics,' and numbering the series from 1 to 40, as the complainant's are numbered from 1 to 35; that in regard to the most usual remedies for the most common complaints or diseases he had adopted the same numbers for the same disease, that complainant has used for many years; and that the effect of such imitations is to deceive the public by making purchasers believe, when buying the specifics of the defendant, that they are obtaining the complainant's remedies.
An application is now made for an injunction to restrain the defendant, pendente lite, from the continued use of such labels in connection with numbers.
The case presents an interesting question. A trade-mark is any proper mark by which goods and wares of the owner or manufacturer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Scharf Tag, Label & Box Co.
...as a trade-mark when so printed, but that the same numeral printed in ordinary manner was not an infringement. In Humphreys Specific Co. v. Wenz (C.C.) 14 F. 250; Boardman v. Meriden Britannia Co., 35 Conn. 402, Am.Dec. 270; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Lowell Co., 129 Mass. 325, 37 Am.Rep. 362; an......
-
SAN FRANCISCO ASS'N, ETC. v. Industrial Aid for Blind
...consisted of a body shape and color combination of a fountain pen. The trademark was held invalid. In Humphreys' Specific Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Wenz, C.C., 14 F. 250, loc. cit. 253, the Court held that "homeopathic specifics" standing alone could not be appropriated as a trademark. No......
-
Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co. v. Utah Independent Telephone Co.
... ... such a result. Humphreys', etc., v. Wenz (C ... C.), 14 F. 250, decides that a ... ...
-
Kyle v. Perfection Mattress Co.
... ... Ertheiler (C. C.) 1 ... Fed. 688; Medicine Co. v. Wenz (C. C.) 14 F ... It may ... be ... ...