Dr. Peter H. Fahrney & Sons Co. v. Ruminer
Citations
- 153 F. 735
- 82 C.C.A. 621
- 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4452
Syllabus
<p>1. Trade-Names — Names of Medicines — Unlawful Competition.</p> <p>Complainant manufactured and sold a patent medicine made from herbs, which since 1888 had been known and widely advertised as “Alpenkrauter.” After its sale became successful, defendants advertised a similar remedy under the name “St. Bernard Alpen Krauter.” Held, that defendants’ use of such term constituted unfair competition.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, §§ 79, 82.]</p> <p>2. Samis — In junction — Da cues.</p> <p>In a suit to enjoin further use of the name of defendants’ patent medicine as unlawful competition, complainant’s inexcusable ladies was not a defense to its right to an injunction restraining defendants’ future misconduct.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, § 95.]</p> <p>3. Samis — Right to Relief — Unclean Hands.</p> <p>Complainant and its predecessors since 1888 manufactured and widely advertised and sold a patent medicine, called “Alpenkrauter,” as a blood purifier, claimed to cure a great number of diseases, which in fact it did not do. The public was cautioned not to consult physicians nor druggists, because the medicine was not for sale there, and, while it claimed that the medicine was composed in part of imported herbs, complainant's witness refused before the master to disclose the ingredients of the medicine or to state from what herb houses or firms the herbs were purchased. Held, not to show that complainant did not come into equity with clean hands, and was therefore not entitled to relief against defendants’ unfair competition by the sale of another medicine under a similar name.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trade-Marks and Trade-Names. § 94.</p> <p>Unfair competition, see notes to Soheuer v. Muller, 20 C. C. A. 165; Bare v. Harper & Bros., 30 C. G. A. 876.]</p> <p>4. Witnesses — Questions—Refusal to Answer.</p> <p>W
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- granting second examination upon finding that “a long period of time intervening between the [first] examination and trial” combined with change in physical condition of the plaintiff afforded justification for a further examination
- granting a second Rule 35 examination
- collecting cases involving second examinations
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Baker, Grosscup, Kohlsaat
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.