Schmidt

Schmidt v. Brieg

Good Law
100 Cal. 672·1893 Cal. LEXIS 848·22 L.R.A. 790·35 P. 623
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 30, 1893No. 15132California2,665 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

This is an action for an injunction, and to recover damages for an infringement of plaintiffs’ trademark and labels.

The facts found by the court below are substantially as follows: In the year 1887, plaintiffs commenced to manufacture and sell a new and valuable medicinal compound or beverage, and adopted and used in con- *676 and Iron.” By reason of the superior character of the medicinal constituents employed in the manufacture of the beverage or compound it became widely known and highly esteemed by the trade, and identified and distinguished by dealers and consumers under the designation of “ Sarsaparilla and Iron.” This name was not at that time in use, or known as a designation of any similar article of manufacture on sale. For the purpose of identifying the beverage as being of their manufacture, and to distinguish it from other articles of a similar nature, plaintiffs have affixed to the bottles containing the same their own labels, devices and trademark, specimens of which are attached to the complaint herein. The article has become widely known, to the public and to buyers and consumers thereof as the beverage manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs not only through…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.