LETTERS T O T H E EDITOR
want
MONEL for handling corrosive liquids?
SH
Ρ Common Names and Trade Names &Ί
η
m £Ί
Below: Imtallarion vieu of a monel-claA steel re flu \ Jrum at a Southern refinerx
;S?f^^^s= Let us furnish estimating data or quotations to meet your exact specifications W h e n y o u want process equipment built of m o n e l for handling corrosive liquids containing chloride ions n o n - o x i d i z i n g acids o r other corro sive ingredients, remember that this metal is n o stranger t o Chicago Bridge. Our s h o p s k n o w h o w to handle it and our plants are located to p r o v i d e prompt service. Write the nearest office for information o r quotations.
CHICAGO BRIDGE & I R O N COMPANY Atlanta 3 Birmingham 1 Boston 1 0 Chicago 4 Cleveland 15 Detroit 2 6 Houston 2 Los Angeles 1 7 New York 6 Philadelphia 3 Salt Lake City 4 San Francisco 4 Seattle 1 Tulsa 3
2876
21 30 Healey Bldg. 1539 North Fiftieth St. 1 0 5 4 — 2 0 1 Devonshire St. 2137 McCormick B!dg. 2229 Guildhall Bldg. 1545 Lafayette Bldg. 21 53 National Standard Bldg. 1537 General Petroleum Bldg. 3321—165 Broadway Bldg. 1 6 3 9 — 1 7 0 0 Walnut Street Bldg. 5 5 9 West 17th South St. 1 5 3 5 — 2 0 0 Bush St. 1 3 5 9 Henry Bldg. 1 6 4 2 Hunt Bldg.
DEAR SIH:
T h e letter from John A. Bradshaw in the May 15 C&EN, protesting the use in the April 10 issue of Adrenalin (a regis tered trade-mark of Parke, Davis & Co. ) as though it were a common name, stirs my curiosity. A t what point and h o w does a trade-mark pass into the common do main as t h e result of its use as a common name? "Adrenalin," with a small "a" has been used for epinephrine in the texts of abstracts and as the main index entry in Chemical Abstracts since 1907. Nor is this the only instance of the use b y CA of a trade-marked name as though it were a common one. A superficial search of t h e Fourth Decennial Index ( 1937-46 ) reveals t h e use as main index entries of the following names of drugs: avertin ( Winthrop-Stearn's trade-mark for tribromoethanol—USP), butesin (Abbott's trade-mark for butyl aininobenzoate— TSP), dilaudid ( Bilhuber-Knoll's trade mark for dihydromorphinone— USP X I V ) , diothane ( Maxell's trade-mark for diperodon—NNR), nupercaine ( Ciba's trade mark for dibucaine—NF I X ) , and pyrainidon (Winthrop-Stearn's trade-mark for aininopyrine— U SP ). Mind you, I am not criticizing CA's editorial staff. In the instances mentioned, common names were not provided until the materials had been in use for a long time. Even when drug firms owning trade-marked names coin common names before t h e drug is marketed, the common names often are unknown to or are ignored by authors and editors of the preliminaryarticles o n the toxicity, pharmacology, and clinical trials of the materials. T h e ab stracters and indexers of CA hardly can be expected t o trace down the origin of each trivial and seemingly common name used in t h e papers they handle. Naturally, once an entry has been established, change is difficult. Several things could be done about this general situation. 1. Chemists and chemical engineers could learn the important facts about trade-marks (there are very f e w ) , as they are now taught the chief principles of patent law, in courses in college and in dustry, and by articles in technical journals. 2. Firms could have editors for manu scripts ( whether of speeches, press re leases, technical papers, books or reports) by their employees. Besides watching for errors in English and for premature dis closure of confidential information, these editors could b e sure that the company's trade names are indicated correctly, e.g., "trade-mark registered U. S. Patent Office," "U. S. trade-mark applied for," etc. (Although these phrases may be de leted before the material is printed, the names will be set in type used by the in dividual periodical or publisher to set off proprietary names. ) T h e policy could be extended to cover reports and articles writ ten by "consultants," e.g., laboratories hired t o make the toxicity studies and doctors retained to conduct clinical tests. 3. A common name could be coined C H E M I C A L
and searched for possible interference with existing trade-marks at the same time as t h e trade-mark name is being considered. Once adopted, the common name should b e placed conspicuously on labels, along with the trade-mark name, on all samples released as well as on trade packages. Contrary to popular belief, the provision of a common name will not endanger the trade-mark name, hut will serve to pro tect it. 4. Chemists and chemical engineers should call to the attention of their em ployers* legal departments instances of misuse of the companies* trade-mark names in the technical literature. With respect to point 3, it is in the public interest to have only one common name. Therefore, the first name selected ought to be publicized widely. In the case of therapeutic agents, it helps to sub mit the name (which can be done "whether or not the drug is submitted for accept ance) to the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the American Medical Asso ciation. If the name is thought suitable an announcement is made in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Crane, editor-in-chief of CA, is an adviser t o the council on names. A N N A LOUISE
NESTMANN
Chicago, 111 The Gentlemen from Cambridge On the Brink DEAR SIR:
Although w e did not wish to publish further data on our suggested unit "the brink," it seems vital that the original dimensions b e made known in view of the recent letter from Mr. Baurer in the July 24 C&EN. The obvious dimension of a brink is a unit of loss. Thus a change in weight of "one brink grams" implies the loss in weight of 10 e grams. However, the in troduction by Mr. Baurer of the reciprocal brink has caused undue confusion in this laboratory. Thus w e propose that such cumbersome expressions as "the loss of one microknirb grams," be omitted from ordinary usage, since a reciprocal brink implies a gain while the over-all change is actually a loss. It may be seen at once what wild con fusion might result in scientific circles from such loose use of terms. Though these authors have fully pondered the pos sible use of "the reciprocal brink," w e find its employment incompatible with clear, ordered, scientific thinking. ROBERT C. O S T H O F F E A R L L. MUETTERTIES
Cambridge,
Mass.
Thinking in Large Terms DEAR SIR:
I have just read your editorial "Thirty Fateful Days," in July 31 C&EN, and find it very interesting. I enjoyed its highminded thoughts and fine expressions, and I congratulate you on its excellence. HARRY L.
Washington, AND
FISHER
D. C.
ENGINEERING
NEWS
