Marshall v. Pinkham
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Fond, du Lao County. This was an action by Charles H. Marshall and Mary TP"., his wife, to restrain the defendant and his servants and agents from preparing, putting up or offering for sale a certain alleged imitation of “ Marshall’s Rheumatic Liniment,” or any compound bearing the name of Marshall’s Liniment or any imitation of said name, or bearing certain labels described in the complaint, or any imitation of plaintiffs’ label or…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Fond, du Lao County. This was an action by Charles H. Marshall and Mary TP"., his wife, to restrain the defendant and his servants and agents from preparing, putting up or offering for sale a certain alleged imitation of “ Marshall’s Rheumatic Liniment,” or any compound bearing the name of Marshall’s Liniment or any imitation of said name, or bearing certain labels described in the complaint, or any imitation of plaintiffs’ label or trade-mark; and also to have defendant adjudged to account to plaintiffs for all profits realized by him upon previous sales of…
1Opinion of the CourtCassoday, J.
A trade-mark performs a distinctive office. As such its use maybe protected by the courts. But this does-not authorize a monopoly upon fragments of the language, nor the exclusive appropriation of words in common use descriptive of common objects and qualities. It has often been decided that words which are _ merely descriptive of the kind, nature, style, character or quality of the goods or articles sold, cannot be exclusively appropriated and protected as a trademark.
In Caswell v. Davis, 58 N. Y., 223, it was held that “ words *578or phrases in common use, and which indicate the character,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Meneely v. . MeneelyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Caswell v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Gilman v. HunnewellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Fetridge v. WellsThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- C. F. Simmons Medicine Co. v. Mansfield Drug Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1893
- Fish Bros. Wagon v. La Belle Wagon WorksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Melms v. PfisterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Vredenburg v. Safety Devices Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Tomsky v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.