Desmond's Appeal
This text of 103 Pa. 126 (Desmond's Appeal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The opinion of the court ivas filed
The original bill declares “ that the said medicines have been and are distinguished by (lie names of ‘ Samaritan’s Gift,’and ‘ Samaritan’s Root and Herb Juices,’ and that the said names are the trade-marks of the same together with certain labels and wrappers hereto annexed marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and bjr said trade-marks the same are distinguished from all other compound medicines.”
It does not aver an imitation or similarity in the appearance of the labels and wrappers. An examination of the two shows they are quite dissimilar in names and appearance. It is true each has the word “ Samaritan,” but in such different form and combination of -words as to preclude one medicine being taken for the othei. We do not think the amended bill removes the difficulty of the appellant. The appropriation of the word “ Samaritan ” in one combination of words does not prevent its being used in all other combinations.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
103 Pa. 126, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desmonds-appeal-pa-1883.