298 
liebig’s extract of meat. 
them from eminent scientific authorities and prominent representatives of the drug trade, 
were read in support of the same views and facts; and some evidence was adduced to 
show that the extract sold by the Plaintiff Company and that made by Liebig’s process 
by other persons, were essentially similar. 
Mr. Giffard Q.C.then addressed the Court on behalf of the Plaintiffs and was followed 
by Mr. Eddis who made a lively and argumentative speech. He contended that al¬ 
though the defendants might if they pleased describe their extract as “ Extract of 
Meat ” or as “Tooth’s Extract of Meat, made according to Liebig’s process ” (as had been 
suggested to them in one of the earliest letters addressed to them by the Plaintiff’s soli¬ 
citor) they were not entitled to adopt the particular distinguishing name which had ac¬ 
quired a commercial celebrity and value in the hands of the plaintiffs. 
Mr. W. M. James Q.C., Mr. Kay Q.C. and Mr. Horton Smith appeared for the defen¬ 
dants but were not called upon. 
The Vice-Chancellor then (without hearing the defence) gave judgment in terms 
which we abridge from short-hand notes as follows :— 
He thought it impossible to grant to the Plaintiffs an injunction in this case to re¬ 
strain the sale of this article upon the ground of the use of the term “ Liebig's Extract 
of Meat.” There was some faint attempt to show a resemblance between the pots, 
labels, &c. used by the Defendants as compared with those of the Plaintiffs, but he 
thought that attempt wholly failed, as beyond the name there was really nothing in 
common between them. 
The Plaintiffs had wholly failed in establishing upon the evidence, that the only thing 
hitherto existing in commerce under the title “ Liebig's Extract of Meat ” was the ex¬ 
tract manufactured by the Fray Bentos Co. He thought upon the evidence that this 
title was acquired before the Fray Bentos Co. had distinctly obtained any interest 
whatever in it, that being in the year 1862. 
The Defendants’ case was, that Baron Liebig published his process in 1847, that 
people took an interest in it, and that it was noticed in various books produced,—among 
others in Acton’s Cookery , 1855, where it is mentioned as “ Liebig's Extract of Beef ” ; 
the term Extract of Meat was not a very distinguishing name, and after this time nothing 
could be more natural than for anyone manufacturing the article to apply to it the in¬ 
ventor’s own name, as is necessary in speaking of Dover's Powder or James' Powder. 
One of the witnesses stated that he had made in 1851 Extract of Meat according to the 
process described in Liebig’s “ Letters on Chemistry.” What could be more natural than 
for a person in England to do that ? and seeing that the name Extract of Meat was so 
general (for he supposed extracting the juice of meat was a process that had been known 
ever since jelly was made), it became desirable in speaking of it to distinguish it by the 
name of the inventor, and to fix upon it some name that would denote its character. 
He had been told over and over again that the Extract had not been known to commerce 
at all until the year 1865, but Liebig’s own evidence was to the contrary. Baron Liebig 
tells us that an old pupil of his, Dr. Pettenkofer, who happened to have the honour of being 
the King’s Apothecary, but being on the evidence also a general apothecary, manufactured 
this article and Baron Lieuig says, “I gave him permission to call it my Extract of 
Meat (using the words in German) because he was my pupil, and I could see it all manu¬ 
factured.” Looking at the whole of his evidence, it amounts to nothing more than this,— 
that having a reputation, he did not wish to see his name bandied about and applied in such 
a manner as the well known names of Dr. Clark and Dr. Locock are attached to pills and 
wafers. He says “ I allowed him the use of my name and according to Pettenkofer, it 
was so used from the end of 1860 to the end of 1864. The thing being thus largely used 
at Munich, was quite sufficient to give it a name. This was not done by way of any sort 
of right in property, which the Baron wished to reserve upon it. In this way it became 
generally known: it was known all over Germany and it was known to some people in 
this country, but it might not have been known to all;—and that accounted for the dis¬ 
crepancy (though really there was none) between the two classes of witnesses. There 
is a class of witnesses called on one side who say that they did know the name, and a 
class of witnesses on the other who say they did not know the name. The case of one 
person of character and repute who did know, is worth 500 witnesses who did not know 
of it. It was said by Pettenkofer that he ceased to use the name at the end of 1864 
or beginning of 1865 ; we have it in evidence that one of the witnesses called by the de¬ 
fendants visited Pettenkofer himself at Munich in June 1865, and inquired how the 
