Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co.
272 F. 505, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1355 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A word may function as a protected trademark for one class of consumers who associate it with a specific source, while simultaneously being a generic term for another class of consumers who understand it only as the name of the product itself, requiring a court to craft a remedy that reflects this dual meaning.
Facts:
- In 1899, the plaintiff, Bayer Co., coined the word 'Aspirin' for its new drug, acetylsalicylic acid, for which it held a patent.
- Initially, Bayer marketed 'Aspirin' exclusively to physicians, manufacturing chemists, and druggists, who understood the word to signify Bayer's specific product.
- Beginning in 1904, other manufacturing chemists began producing tablets of the drug and sold them to the public under the name 'Aspirin,' with their own company names on the labels but not Bayer's.
- Over many years, the general consuming public, who often bought the tablets without a prescription, came to know the drug only by the name 'Aspirin' and did not associate it with a single manufacturer.
- In the autumn of 1915, approximately 17 months before its patent was to expire, Bayer changed its marketing strategy and began selling tablets directly to consumers in packages that prominently featured the Bayer name.
- Bayer's patent for acetylsalicylic acid expired in March 1917.
- After the patent expired, the defendant, United Drug Co., began manufacturing and selling the drug to the public under the name 'Aspirin'.
Procedural Posture:
- Bayer Co. filed a lawsuit against United Drug Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Bayer Co. sought an injunction for trademark infringement and unfair competition to prevent United Drug Co. from using the word 'Aspirin'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a coined word that was originally a trademark for a patented product become a generic term, free for all to use, when the general public comes to know the product only by that name, even if trade professionals still associate the name with its original manufacturer?
Opinions:
Majority - Learned Hand, District Judge
No, a word that has become the generic name of a product to the general public cannot be exclusively controlled as a trademark in sales to that audience, but it may retain its trademark status among a specialized group of buyers who continue to recognize it as a source-identifier. The central question is a matter of fact: what do the buyers understand by the word? The court found the market was divided into two distinct classes. The first class, consisting of physicians and chemists, was educated by Bayer to understand that 'Aspirin' meant Bayer's product, and they also knew the drug by its chemical name, 'acetyl salicylic acid.' For this group, 'Aspirin' remained a valid trademark. The second class, the general consuming public, knew the drug only as 'Aspirin' and had no reason to believe it came from a single source, as they had long purchased tablets made by various manufacturers labeled as 'Aspirin.' Bayer, by allowing other chemists to sell tablets to the public under that name for years, effectively allowed the word to pass into the public domain for this consumer group. Bayer's attempt to reclaim the word's trademark status with the public in 1915 was too late. Therefore, the remedy must be tailored to this split reality: the defendant is enjoined from using the word 'Aspirin' in sales to the trade (chemists, druggists, etc.) but is free to use it in sales to the general public.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in trademark law for establishing the doctrine of 'dual-meaning' trademarks, where a term can be generic to one population segment but a valid mark to another. It underscores that the meaning of a trademark is determined by consumer perception, not by the owner's intent. The decision showcases the equitable power of courts to craft nuanced injunctions that reflect market realities, protecting the trademark holder's goodwill where it exists while preventing the monopolization of a term that the public has adopted as generic. This principle remains highly influential in cases of 'genericide,' where a famous brand name is at risk of losing its trademark status.
Unlock the full brief for Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co.