Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. v. Liebig Extract Co.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1910 |
| Docket Number | 211. |
| Citation | 180 F. 688 |
| Parties | LIEBIG'S EXTRACT OF MEAT CO. v. LIEBIG EXTRACT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
James L. Steuart (Steuart & Steuart, of counsel), for appellant.
Herbert S. Murphy, for appellee.
Before COXE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The bill in this case proceeds upon the theory that the complainant has the exclusive right to use the name 'Liebig' or 'Liebig's' in connection with the manufacture and sale of extract of meat in this country. It avers that in 1863 the Societe de Fray Bentos Giebert & Cie was formed under the laws of Belgium for the purpose of manufacturing and selling extract of meat; that in 1865 this Societe Anonyme sold out all its business, good will, property and trade-marks to the complainant; that Baron Liebig conferred upon the complainant or its predecessor the exclusive right to use his name in connection with the manufacture and sale of the extract of meat; that the complainant manufactures according to a secret process learned from Baron Liebig; that its business in this country has grown so large that the public understands by the expression 'Liebig's Extract' its product.
The bill then avers that the defendant manufactures an extract of meat in packages imitating the complainant's, and prays for a decree enjoining the defendant from using the word 'Liebig' in connection with the sale of extract of meat and for an accounting. Appended to the bill are copies of defendant's wrapper, on which the word 'Liberty' is printed in obvious imitation of Baron Liebig's signature on the complainant's package. But the use of these labels was abandoned by the defendant before the suit was brought, and the real issue in the case is as to complainant's right to exclusive ownership in the name 'Liebig.'
The answer avers that the word 'Liebig' in any form in connection with extract of meat refers to a formula which though not invented by Liebig, was brought into prominence by him and generally known under his name before the Fray Bentos Company was in existence and that the word is publici juris.
The complainant began the introduction of its goods into the United States in 1870, and from that time the business grew rapidly and without competition. It was the sole occupant of the field for 20 years or more. Others then began to use the word 'Liebig' in connection with their extract of meat, but this has been abandoned almost entirely. The defendant to the knowledge of the complainant had used the name for 6 years before this suit was brought.
The record is very meager on the subject of the real issue. It is shown that in 1847 Liebig in a work called 'Chemical Study of Meat' published a formula for extracting meat which had been invented by Proust many years before and that in 1859 in his 'Familiar Letters on Chemistry' he recommended this process for use in the manufacture of extract of meat on a large scale. He was evidently the person who commercialized the idea.
The only proof of contracts between Baron Liebig and the complainant or its predecessor is to be found in the testimony of witnesses taken abroad under commissions without cross-interrogatories and read in evidence without objection. Charles Rotter, who was secretary of the complainant from 1865 to 1894, says that Baron Liebig granted it the exclusive right to use his name in connection with extract of meat Gilligan, the present secretary, says that Baron Liebig gave the complainant the exclusive use of his name in connection with extract of meat manufactured according to his method Dethioux, one of the managers of complainant from 1895 to 1907, says that Baron Liebig gave it the exclusive right of using his name for the manufacture and sale of the extract of meat invented by him; Muller, sole manager of the complainant at Antwerp since 1901, says that Baron Liebig gave it the right to use his name in connection with the manufacture and sale of Liebig's Extract of Meat according to his prescription. The contracts were not produced nor called for nor was any objection taken to the testimony. In this state of the case we must find as a fact that Baron Liebig did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum
...N.E. 214; Madison Square Garden Corp. v. Universal Pictures Co., 255 App.Div. 459, 465, 7 N.Y.S.2d 845; Cf. Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. v. Liebig Extract Co., 2 Cir., 180 F. 688. We think Pekas Co., Inc. v. Leslie, 52 N.Y.L.J.1864, decided in 1915 by Justice Greenbaum sitting in the Suprem......
- Hilliard v. Lyons