Jacobs v. Beecham
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The facts aré stated in the opinion. The right to use the name of Beecham is publici juris, andj defendant is. not guilty of unfair competition. Appellee has ho trade-mark. There can be no trade-jnark in a proper name. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540; Corbin v. Gould, 133 U. S. 308; LeClanche Battery Co. v. Western Elec. Co., 23 Fed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The facts aré stated in the opinion. The right to use the name of Beecham is publici juris, andj defendant is. not guilty of unfair competition. Appellee has ho trade-mark. There can be no trade-jnark in a proper name. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540; Corbin v. Gould, 133 U. S. 308; LeClanche Battery Co. v. Western Elec. Co., 23 Fed. Rep; 276; Hopkins on Trade-marks, 2d ed., §§ 40, 53. No unfair competition has been shown. There is no evidence that defendant’s pills were inferior or…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is a bill by the owner of a proprietary or patent medicine, so called, made according to a secret formula and known as Beecham’s Pills, to restrain the defendant from using the same name on pills made by him, and trying to appropriate the plaintiff’s good will. The plaintiff had a decree in the Circuit Court enjoining the defendant from using the word Beecham in connection with pills prepared or sold by him, which decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 159 Fed. Rep. 129. 86 C. C. A. 623.
The present appeal is based on two or three different grounds. The first of these is…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Saxlehner v. WagnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Holzapfel's Compositions Co. v. Rahtjen's American Composition Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1968
- L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- R. G. Smith, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of Ta'ron, Inc., and International Fragrances, Inc. v. Chanel, Inc., and Chanel Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
- Saalfield Pub. Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
- A. T. Cross Company v. Jonathan Bradley Pens, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.