Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
June,  1911. 
Progress  in  Pharmacy. 
291 
freedom  of  action  to  all  natural  forces ;  assist  by  the  staff  only  as 
actually  needed  and  the  steep  will  be  surmounted. 
Adrenalin. — A  news  note  {Oil,  Paint  and  Drug  Reporter, 
May  8,  191 1,  p.  28H),  points  out  that  in  the  final  hearing  on  the 
alleged  infringement  of  the  Takamine  patents  on  glandular  ex- 
tractive products,  Justice  Hand  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court 
found  for  the  complainant  on  nine  of  the  sixteen  claims  in  the 
patent  specifications  in  question,  in  one  cause  of  action,  and  on 
four  of  the  eight  claims  in  the  other  cause.  The  news  item  also 
points  out  that  not  all  of  the  claims  of  either  patient  were  at  issue, 
and  that  Justice  Hand  held  that  the  case  had  to  do  only  with  the 
patent  on  the  product  and  not  that  on  the  process. 
Epinephrine. — An  editorial  in  discussing  the  need  for  a  generic 
name  for  the  blood-pressure-raising  substance  of  the  suprarenal 
gland,  points  out  that  there  are  thirty  or  more  different  brands  of 
solution  of  this  substance  on  the  market,  five  being  in  this  country 
alone.  The  products  are  identical  so  far  as  their  chief  constituent 
is  concerned ;  they  differ,  however,  as  to  the  solvent  and  preserva- 
tive used.  The  processes  of  manufacture  of  some  of  them  are 
patented ;  all  of  them  are  sold  under  trade  names.  The  editorial 
concludes  that  it  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized  that  "  Epine- 
phrine "  is  a  true  scientific  name  for  the  active  principle  of  the 
suprarenal  gland,  and  that  it  should  be  used  on  all  occasions  when 
the  active  principle  and  not  some  particular  firm's  make  is  referred 
to. — J.  Am.  M.  Ass.,  191 1,  v.  56,  p.  901. 
Aspirin, — ^The  Bayer  Co.,  Ltd.,  in  discussing  trade-mark  rights, 
points  out  that  as  a  rule  an  important  trade-mark  is  the  property 
of  a  wealthy  firm,  but  none  the  less  it  is  something  that  has  to  be 
worked  for ;  behind  it  there  is  brain  and  there  is  energy,  and  it  has 
had  to  be  paid  for.  The  law  supports  its  rights,  and  anyone  infringing 
them  does  so  at  his  peril. — Pharm.  I.,  Lond.,  191 1,  v.  86,  March  11, 
p-  358. 
M.  Meldrum,  in  a  communication  in  which  he  discusses  the 
abuses  that  have  grown  out  of  trade-mark  rights  in  England, 
asserts  that  honesty,  commercial  honesty  at  least,  has  become  more 
or  less  relative.  He  contends  that  the  royalty  or  profit  of  trade- 
marked  articles  is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  price  paid  and  the 
modicum  of  brain  and  energy  supplied  by  the  holder  of  the  trade- 
mark, and  thinks  it  high  time  to  consider  the  possibility  of  placing 
some  check  on  the  present  methods  of  granting  trade-marks  or 
