liebig’s extract of meat. 
299 
article was made and he was referred by Pettenkofer to the Bavarian Pharmacopoeia. 
That answers another part of the case in which it was said, by the Baron that no formula 
for this manufacture was published by him; but Pettenkoter refers the witness to the 
formula and says “ There it is.” Further he handed over to this witness a sample of the 
article (in June 1865) labelled in German “ Liebig's Extract of Meat ,—that is, after the 
time in which he says that he had ceased to use the name of Liebig. It is said the 
Extract was not known in commerce :—what is Baron Liebig’s own account of it ? He 
shows how much it was used in Germany, not only for physic, but as food ; and that 
this King’s-apothecary (Pettenkofer) manufactured no less than 5000 pounds of meat 
per annum. Here is a manufacture wholly separate from the South American manu- 
iacture and wholly separate from the Plaintiff Company’s. Pettenkofer was manufac¬ 
turing 5000 pounds of meat per annum, which did not make a large quantity of the 
article, which however was sold with Liebig’s name. All this confirms what these gen- 
tlemeu have said : they might not have heard of Pettenkofer, but nothing could be more 
natural than when they wanted to distinguish Liebig's Extract of Meat they should 
apply to it the name of the inventor. There is another thing in the Plaintiff’s prospectus 
although not so strong, which shows very much that this name had been acquired. The pro¬ 
spectus says “ The object of this Company is to manufacture on a large scale,”—not an 
article of commerce to be called Liebig's Extract , but “ to manufacture on a large scale 
the pure and genuine Extractuvn Carnis Liebig —that is to say “ There is the article, but 
like everything else it is adulterated ; it is a well-known article in commerce as Extractum 
Carnis Liebig and we are going to give you it genuine.” What follows is relied upon 
as a matter of great importance and so it is :—it is this,—“ with the assistance and under 
the immediate control of Baron Liebig—and that is the real advantage they (the 
Plaintiffs) have ; they have the Baron’s assistance and his certificate, which is no doubt 
a considerable advantage. 
There is a German witness produced by the Plaintiffs who says in his affidavit that he 
never had any difficulty in manufacturing the article. He says “ I have known it in 
Germany and people have come to me for the Extractum Carnis ,” and that “it is the 
Extractum Carnis made after the prescription of Liebig,” showing thereby, that he well 
knew that there did exist such a prescription, and that from it such a thing might be 
made. Another German witness says, that so long as 17 years ago he manufactured it 
himself, and that it was known by the name Liebig's Extract of Meat , and there are 
other witnesses who speak to the same sort of thing. The defendants have a right to do 
the same, unless there had been some ground such as fraud, suggested in the case. It 
has been said that it is an indicium of fraud, when it would be so easy to change the 
name, and instead of calling it Liebig's Extract of Meat to call it Extract of Meat made 
after Liebig's recipe. It is said—“ why do you not do that ? And the very fact of 
your not doing that, is a sufficient indicium of fraud.” 
“ If it be true,” said the Vice Chancellor, “ that the article is known by that name, 
then I apprehend it would be very wrong for the Court to interfere with regard to an 
article that is known by a common name. It does not strike me that there is ground 
for saying the defendants have acted fraudulently in that respect, because it is not the 
same thing to drop the common name and call it something else. And the instance 
given by Mr. Eddis in his argument is very much to the purpose, that a picture after 
Raphael is not Raphael’s picture. Therefore if you say “ after Liebig’s prescription,” 
the world would begin to say,—This is not the old article that we have known so well. 
There is an old article known in the commercial world as being “ Liebig's Extract of 
Meat," and this is called “ after Liebig’s prescription ” because you dare not say that it 
is Liebig’s Extract of Meat. You are doing that in a somewhat different fashion:— 
you change the phrase and induce us to buy an article which has not Liebig’s name 
upon it, which you will not ^ive his name to. However small the difference may appear, 
yet it is a well known thing in commerce that a short name is a matter of considerable 
importance, and to call it “ Liebig's Extract of Meat ” instead of calling it an “ Extract 
of Meat after Liebig's prescription ” would not be of inconsiderable importance. It ap¬ 
pears that these gentlemen have taken all the care they are bound to take,—they have 
taken great care to say it is manufactured by Tooth and not by the Plaintiff’s Company, 
and they have taken great care to show that Liebig has nothing to do with testing their 
article but that another gentleman of great experience, Dr. Miller, undertakes that 
operation for them and they go into the world fairly competing with the Plaintiffs 
