TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Heath v. Wright

Heath v. Wright, 11 F. Cas. 1007 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
October 15, 1855
Judges
Kane
Citations
11 F. Cas. 10073 Wall. Jr. 141
Headnotes
Case No. 6,310. Injunction — Patent Medicine. Chancery will not interfere by injunction in questions of trade mark between the vendors of patent medicines, being quack medicines; such questions having too little merit to commend them on either side. [Cited in Kohler Man'uf’g Co. v. Beeshore, 59 Fed. 574.]
Summary
This was an application by the complainant for an injunction to restrain the defendant from using the name “Kathairon” for a compound for toilet purposes, manufactured and vended by both parties. The complainant alleged that this term was his trade mark, which the defendant denied, alleging that the word “Kathairon” was in common use, like that of “Magazine,” &c. Both Kathairons consisted essentially of a mixture of castor oil and brandy;, and it appeared by the labels upon the bottles which contained the respective Kathairons, that the complainant claimed for his, that it would infallibly cure “scald head, tetter, ringworm, erysipelas, itch, barber’s itch, shaving pimples, salt rheum, chapped hands, stings, cuts, chilblains, swellings, inflammations, rheuma-tisms,” &c.: and that it would “almost instantly relieve sympathetic attacks of nervous headache,” besides “restoring the hair, and preventing it from turning gray.” "It would be labor lost,” his label declared, “to enumerate the wonderful properties of this invaluable preparation; its reputation, coextensive with the civilization of the globe, makes all praise superfluous, all exaggeration impossible.” The claim of the defendant was not quite so extensive/ He declared his to be a “sovereign remedy for tetter, itch, scald head, salt rheum, ringworm.” He made no mention of its power to cure erysipelas, but professed that It was able to cure “barber’s itch, chapped hands, chilblains, stings and bites of insects, inflammations, swellings;” &c., besides “preserving the hair and keeping it from turning gray,” and dispelling nervous headache. And he averred that his Kathairon had had “millions of patrons.”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Kane

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

KANE, District Judge.

It is impossible for me to distinguish this case in principle from that of Fowle v. Spear [Case No. 4,996], which was before me on a similar motion some years ago. I then refused an injunction against the vendor of a patent medicine at the suit of his brother quack, who complained that his label and envelope of certificates had been imitated, on the ground that the special action of chancery could not be involved in a controversy which had so little merit to commend it on either side. Injunction refused.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 11903: 11909: 11914: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co.187 U.S. 516 (1903)
  2. Kohler Manuf'g Co. v. Beeshore59 F. 572 (3d Cir. 1893)
  3. A. N. Chamberlain Medicine Co. v. H. A. Chamberlain Medicine Co.86 N.E. 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)
  4. World's Dispensary Medical Ass'n v. Collier86 Misc. 217 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1914)

Most recent

  1. World's Dispensary Medical Ass'n v. Collier86 Misc. 217 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1914)
  2. A. N. Chamberlain Medicine Co. v. H. A. Chamberlain Medicine Co.86 N.E. 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)
  3. Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co.187 U.S. 516 (1903)
  4. Kohler Manuf'g Co. v. Beeshore59 F. 572 (3d Cir. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list