Am.  Jour.  Pharm. ) 
September,  1920.  ) 
Editorial. 
613 
Upon  the  text  of  this  decision  as  given  in  the  editorial  the  fol- 
lowing comments  are  made. 
"The  title  of  the  editorial,  and  the  comments  of  the  editor,  and 
also  the  decision  of  the  Court  are  at  variance  with  what  seems  to 
be  the  law  relating  to  copyright,  patents,  and  trade-marks,  not  only 
in  the  United  States,  but  in  Great  Britain,  and  its  Colonies.  The 
editor  seems  to  have  a  confused  idea  in  regard  to  copyright,  or  the 
right  to  copy  the  published  writings  of  writers  and  the  unpatented 
discoveries  of  inventors — rights  possessed  by  everybody — and  the 
exclusive  right  naturally  possessed  by  every  manufacturer  to  so  mark 
his  brand  of  goods  as  to  inform  the  public  concerning  their  source  of 
manufacture.  The  text  of  the  'judgment'  indicates  that  Mr.  Justice 
Duclos  shares  in  this  confusion  of  mind. 
"As  stated  in  the  Report  of  the  Commissioners  Appointed  to 
Revise  the  Statutes  Relating  to  Patents,  Trade  and  other  Marks, 
and  Trade  and  Commercial  Names,  under  Act  of  Congress  Ap- 
proved June  4,  1898  (Senate  Document  No.  20),  p.  91:  'There 
is  no  such  thing  as  an  exclusive  right  to  any  particular  branch  of 
industry.  Any  article  of  manufacture,  unless  it  be  protected  by  a 
patent,  may  be  made  and  sold  by  any  person.  The  only  restriction 
is  that  each  party  shall  stand  upon  his  own  merits,  and  none  shall  be 
permitted,  by  the  use  of  marks  or  symbols,  to  pretend  that  the  goods 
offered  by  him  are  the  products  of  another.'  " 
The  necessities  of  spoken  and  written  language,  the  necessities 
of  science,  of  the  arts  and  manufactures,  and  of  commerce,  require 
that  each  new  invention  shall  be  provided  with  a  name  of  its  own  by 
which  it  may  be  recognized  and  dealt  in,  and  that  such  name  shall 
be  free  to  the  use  of  all  who  have  the  right  to  make  and  deal  in  the 
article.  This  self-evident  fact  was  well  expressed  by  the  Court  in 
Leclanche  Battery  Co.  vs.  Western  Elec.  Co.,  23  Fed.  Rep.,  227,  as 
follows:  "When  an  article  is  made  that  was  theretofore  unknown, 
it  must  be  christened  with  a  name  by  which  it  can  be  recognized  and 
dealt  in,  and  the  name  thus  given  it  becomes  public  property,  and 
all  who  deal  in  the  article  have  a  right  to  designate  it  by  the  name  by 
which  it  is  alone  recognizable." 
Mr.  Justice  Duclos  says:  "After  a  careful  consideration  of  the 
evidence,  authorities  and  arguments  submitted  to  me  I  find: 
"i.  That  the  petitioners  secured  a  valid  and  still  existing  trade- 
mark in  Canada." 
Comments. — Castoria  is  the  name  of  the  product  sold  by  the 
