We offer Messrs. Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co. our congratulations on the result of the action lately tried in the High Court of justice.

In the course of this action – brought by Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co. to restrain Thompson and Capper, a firm of retail chemists having large establishments in Manchester, Liverpool, and other north-country towns, from passing off goods not of Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co.’s manufacture when “tabloids” or “tabloid” products were prescribed – several points of moment to the medical profession were brought out.

The case, which will be an historical one so far as medicine and pharmacy are concerned, lasted seven days. During its course a number of the most distinguished members of the medical profession, and wholesale and retail chemists from England, Scotland, and Ireland, appeared for the plaintiffs, and definitely proved that in the profession and trade it was generally recognised that “tabloid” meant the preparations of Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co.

The direct question of substitution, which is a very grave one, especially where drugs are concerned, was complicated by the defendants raising as a secondary issue the validity of the plaintiffs’ trade-mark “Tabloid.” Basing their attack mainly on the fact that Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co. have refrained from familarising the public with their medicinal preparations, and have advertised them solely to the medical profession and drug trade, the defendants endeavoured to prove that the word “tabloid” had no special reference to Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co.’s products.

As to the acts of substitution, definite evidence was submitted in no less than twelve cases where in response to prescriptions and verbal requests other goods were passed off when Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co.’s preparations were asked for. In three cases not only was the firm’s trade-mark “Tabloids” used on the prescriptions or orders, but the full name, “Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co.,” or the initials “B. W. & Co.,” had been added. Even this precaution had failed to secure the supply of Burroughs, Wellcome, and Co.’s preparations. The defendants’ manager was the first witness for the defence. His admission under cross-examination settled the question as to substitution.