Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1892 |
| Citation | 52 F. 455 |
| Parties | RICHTER v. ANCHOR REMEDY CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
A. v Briesen, W. Bakewell, and W. L. Pierce, for complainant.
A. H Clarke and Barton & Barton, for defendants.
Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and BUFFINGTON, District Judge.
In the fall of 1887 the defendants, under the name of the Anchor Remedy Company, engaged, and have since continued, in business, at the city of Pittsburgh, as manufacturers and vendors of proprietary medicines of their compounding marking their labels, wrappers, and bottles with their business name, and with the representation of a black anchor and designating their compounds 'Anchor Liniment,' 'Anchor Rheumatic Remedy,' etc. In adopting this name and symbol the defendants acted in good faith, believing such use to be original with them. Their labels, wrappers, and packages have been always distinctly marked 'Prepared by the Anchor Remedy Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. ' 'Laboratory, corner Liberty and Fourth streets, Pittsburgh, pa.' The plaintiff, Dr. F. Ad. Richter, a citizen and resident of Germany, by his bill, filed November 13, 1890, seeks to restrain the defendants 'from selling proprietary medicines having thereon any labels, or wrapped in any wrappers, or contained in any bottles, having printed, blown, or otherwise applied the word 'Anchor,' or the pictorial representation of an anchor, and from using the word 'Anchor' as part of their firm name, or the pictorial representation of an anchor in any connection whatsoever in their said business. ' In effect, the plaintiff claims an exclusive right to use in the United States the word 'Anchor,' and the symbol of an anchor, in connection with the manufacture or sale of medical compounds.
The bill, which describes the plaintiff as 'a citizen of the empire of Germany, doing business as F. Ad. Richter & Co., in the city, county, and state of New York,' sets forth that he has been engaged in the city of New York, 'for a number of years last past,' in the sale of proprietary medicines manufactured at his factory; and that, about the year 1869, 'your orator, being so engaged in the sale of proprietary medicines, adopted, applied, and used, as a trade-mark of certain proprietary medicines of his manufacture, the pictorial representation of an anchor, and the word symbol 'Anchor,' which trade-mark or emblem was by him applied and used by printing upon labels, blown into bottles, and otherwise;' and that the same was registered on July 23, 1889, in the United States, agreeably to the act of congress. The proofs show that the plaintiff's factory is at Rudolstadt, Germany, where his goods are and always have been manufactured, marked, labeled, and put up for the market. All the plaintiff's medical compounds-- of which we have before us many specimens-- are unmistakably German preparations, with printed labels, directions, etc., thereon in that language, although having also labels in English; and they are all distinctly marked, 'Manufactured by F. Ad. Richter & Co.'
The bill, it will be perceived, is quite indefinite as to the length of time the plaintiff had been engaged in the city of New York in the sale of his medicines before this suit was brought. Nor do his proofs certainly fix the date when his branch saleshouse was established in that city. It was, undoubtedly, after May 1, 1887, for Charles Bernhart Drugulin, who opened that house for the plaintiff, did not leave Rudolstadt until that date. Prior to that time the plaintiff, had no establishment in the United States. Neither had he ever sold any of his medical compounds in this country before he opened his New York branch house. It is true there had been previously some importations, to a limited extent, into the United States of the plaintiff's medicines, but by druggists and others who sent orders for the medicines to Rudolstadt to supply persons who had lived in Europe, and there had used them.
Prior to his engaging in business in New York the plaintiff's use of the word 'Anchor' and symbol of an anchor was in the empire of Germany, and it is in evidence that he there registered the picture of an anchor as a trade-mark on May 1, 1875, for chemical pharmaceutical preparations and specialities, soaps, liquors, and other designated things; on February 25, 1876, for pharmaceutical preparations; on May 18, 1880, for chemical and pharmaceutical preparations of any kind, etc.; on June 7, 1880, for alcoholic drinks of any kind and other specified articles; and on March 7, 1885, for a number of things, including all kinds of toys for children, tobacco and tobacco fabrics; and the certificates before us show registered announcements at various dates of the further 'retention' of the trade-mark. We have not been shown the law of the German empire in relation to trade-marks nor have we any evidence as to what rights, if any, the owner of a trade-mark there has outside of his registration.
As stated in the bill of complaint, on July 23, 1889, the plaintiff registered in the United States patent office, under the act of congress of March 3, 1881, an anchor trade-mark for medical compounds. But, as we have seen, that registry was long after the defendants had engaged in their said business, and, indeed, after this dispute had arisen between them and the plaintiff, and this lawsuit had been threatened. A facsimile of the plaintiff's trade-mark, as alleged to be used by him, accompanied his 1889 registered declaration, which latter contains the following statement:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc.
...that the defendants there acted in good faith because they "believ[ed] [their] use to be original with them." Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co , 52 F. 455, 455 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1892), aff'd sub nom. Richter v. Reynolds , 59 F. 577 (3d Cir. 1893). Seventy years later, Justice Brennan stressed that a......
-
Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc.
...that the defendants there acted in good faith because they "believ[ed] [their] use to be original with them." Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co , 52 F. 455, 455 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1892), aff'd sub nom. Richter v. Reynolds , 59 F. 577 (3d Cir. 1893). Seventy years later, Justice Brennan stressed that a......
-
Layton Pure Food Co. v. Church & Dwight Co.
...the pleadings and claims of the parties in that case, and the remark regarding it was casual rather than authoritative. Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co. (C.C.) 52 F. 455, 458. But that case is not in point because the complainant had acquired, as had the Church & Dwight Company in this suit, a ......
-
Moxie Co. v. Noxie Kola Co. of New York
...F. 957; Walter Baker & Co. v. Delapenha (C.C.), 160 F. 746; Richter v. Reynolds 3 Cir., 59 F. 577, 579, 8 C.C.A. 220; Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co. (C.C.), 52 F. 455, 458." I pass now to the defendants' second point of opposition, namely that the words "Noxie" or "Noxie Kola" are not so simi......