Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical & Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 03 May 1897 |
Docket Number | 298. |
Citation | 80 F. 105 |
Parties | STERLING REMEDY CO. v. EUREKA CHEMICAL & MANUFACTURING CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
On the reverse side is the following:
This box is sealed with a sealing label of reddish pink, having upon it the complainant's name in script letters, and the following printed thereon:
The appellant at one time used a wire rack, adapted to hold three boxes arranged in a triangular form together with a show card; these racks being used principally by retail dealers in the article. It also used and distributed a booklet containing descriptive matter calling attention to the article and to its merits as a cure, and containing fac simile representations in black and white of the box in which the remedy was packed, and of the imprint and of the label for sealing and of the wire rack.
The answer of the appellee admits that since the 1st day of July, 1894, it has prepared and put upon the market and sold a certain other alleged remedy or cure for the so-called 'tobacco habit,' which preparation is put up and sold in an ordinary tin tobacco box of the same form and size as that of the complainant. The article is also in the form of a tablet or lozenge, of dark brown or black color, somewhat smaller than the lozenge manufactured by the complainant, and of less weight, and without any trade-name thereon. The defendant's lozenge has a strong odor of licorice; the complainant's lozenge is nearly or quite odorless. The imprint of the label upon the defendant's box is green upon a white ground. Upon the top of the box is printed the following:
Upon the reverse side are the following directions:
The sealing label on the box has the following, the name being in script, but much heavier in design than that on the sealing label of the appellant:
There was given considerable evidence tending to show that in the transactions between the defendant and its agents circulars similar in character to those of the complainant were used and contracts with agents were of a similar nature with those used by the complainant. The hearing was had upon stipulation that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. v. Standard Paint Co.
... ... 598, 9 Sup.Ct. 166, 32 L.Ed ... 535; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U.S. 540, 11 ... Sup.Ct. 625, 35 L.Ed. 247. A ... ( Larrabee v. Lewis, 67 Ga. 561, 44 Am.Rep. 735); ... 'Cough Remedy' ( Gilman v. Hunnewell, 122 ... Mass. 139); 'Selected Shore Mackerel' ( ... Soap Co. (C.C.) 26 F. 576, 578); 'No-To-Bac' ... ( Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical & Mfg. Co., ... 80 F. 105, 25 C.C.A. 314); ... ...
-
Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. J.A. Scriven Co.
... ... v. J. A. SCRIVEN CO. PREMIUM MFG. CO. v. SAME. Nos. 2781, 2782. United States Court of ... 129; ... Preservaline Mfg. Co. v. Heller Chemical Co. (C.C.) ... 118 F. 103; Halzapfel's Co. v. Rahtjens ... (C.C.) 26 F ... 576, 578); 'No-To-Bac' ( Sterling Remedy Co. v ... Eureka Chemical & Mfg. Co., 80 F. 105, ... ...
-
Luckett v. Orange Julep Co.
... ... Paper Co., 154 Ind. 673; ... Stone v. Chemical Co., 65 N.J.Eq. 759; Silver ... Springs B. & D. Co. v ... 318; Von ... Mumm v. Frasch, 56 F. 835; Mfg. Co. v. Trainer, ... 101 U.S. 51; Nims, Unfair ... 727; Marvel ... Co. v. Pearl, 133 Fed 160; Remedy Co. v. Eureka ... Co., 80 F. 105; Von Mumm v. Whitteman, ... ...
-
A. J. Reach Company v. Simmons Hardware Company
...afforded the true test of infringement. Centaur Co. v. Marshall, 97 F. 785; Drug Co. v. Pasfield Co., 102 F. 490; Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Co., 80 F. 105; Drug Co. v. Pasfield Co., 102 F. 490; Van Camp Co. v. Cruickshanks Co., 90 F. 814; Wrisley Co. v. Soap Co., 122 F. 796; Dietz v. Mf......