Promise little ana do much. 
NEW YORK SUPERIOR COURT. 
At the Special Teem, April, 1859. 
Pieekepont, Justice. The following decision was 
given: 
“ It appeared before me, upon the trial of this canse, 
that the plaintiff, in November, 1850, compounded, from 
Cocoa-nut Oil and other ingredients, a mixture to be 
used upon the human hair; that lie devised a name 
never before used, by which to mark his said compound, 
to wit:—the name or word ‘ Cocoaine:’ that he forth¬ 
with published in all his circulars, and in all the prin¬ 
cipal newspapers of the country, and especially in the 
city of New York, where the delendauts reside, that lie 
had adopted the above-mentioned name or title as a 
‘ Trade-Mark,’ to secure the public and the proprietors 
against imposition, and that all unauthorized use of 
this trade-mark would be prosecuted. * * * 
“ About two years after the first introduction of this 
article by the plaintiffs, the defendants, residents of the 
city of New York, commenced the sale of a somewhat 
similar preparation, put up in bottles not unlike those 
0 / the plaintiff’s ******** 
“The proof is clear that the plaintiff had, for nearly 
two years, advertised his mixture in nearly every news¬ 
paper in tins city, and had published in the same papers 
! that he had adopted the word ‘ Cocoaine’ as his Trade- 
j .Mark. The defendant was himself a witness, and he did 
! not suggest that these notices had not been brought 
| home to his knowledge; the conclusion is irresistible, 
i that he was aware of their publication, and he inten¬ 
tionally adopted ‘Cocoine’ as a close imitation of 
‘Cocoaine,’ and for the purpose of deriving profit from 
the simulated Trade-Mark. 
“The plaintiff is entitled to judgment, and an injunc¬ 
tion must issue.” 
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS. 
At the July Term, 1887, Davies, Chief Justice, the 
| following final decision was given:— 
“Upon the facts found by the Court, the right of the 
plaintiffs to the relief granted is clear. The plaintiffs 
have adopted, appropriated, and used a certain Trade- 
Mark. This has become their property; and for its 
protection the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke the aid of 
courts of justice. We have the ascertained fact that the 
defendants are using a spurious imitation of the plain¬ 
tiffs’ Trade-Mark. This they cannot be permitted to do. 
“The judgment of the Superior Court of New l’ork 
was correct, and should be affirmed, with costs." 
Undertake nothing without thoroughly considering it. 
