UNFAIR COMPETITION. 277 The case marks a distinct advance in two particulars over any- thing previously known to trade mark law : first, that the plaintiff received protection, although he could not, in the nature of things, establish any exclusive right in himself, which had in trade mark law been regarded as essential ; and, secondly, that the protection given was not to vendible goods in the market,^ which was also an essential in trade marks. The principle of Knott v, Morgan, namely, that the defendants
- ' could not deprive the plaintiffs of the fair profits of their business
by attracting custom upon the false representation that carriages really the defendants' belonged to and were under the manage- ment of plaintiffs," ^ the representation being ** by an accumula- tion of resemblances," ^' has been since applied in innumerable cases where the act complained of consisted in " dressing up," as it is called, the goods of the defendant to look like the goods ot the plaintiff. In some cases the defendant made his package or " dress " an exact copy of that of the plaintiff,^ while in others he has been content to imitate labels, patterns, and styles,^ or packages and labels,^ or peculiarities of the package alone,^ or peculiar labels alone.^ In Hennessy v, Hogan,^ and Hennessy v. White,^^ in the Supreme Court of Victoria, the facts were practically identical. The plaintiff was a distiller who made brandy of two qualities, the better quality being sold only in bottles, while the inferior qual- ity was sold in bulk. The defendants purchased the bulk brandy 1 See Marsh v. Billings, 7 Cush. 322 ; Stone v. Carlan, 13 Monthly L. R. 360. 2 Per Lord Langdale, M. R. 8 Per Wood, V. C, m Wallom v. Ratcliff, i H. & M. 259.
- Von Mumm v. Frash, 56 Fed. Rep. 830 ; Carbolic Soap v. Thompson, 25 Fed.
Rep. 635 ; Sawyer v. Horn, i Fed. Rep. 24 ; Frese v. Bachof, 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 635 ; "Williams v. Spencer, 25 How. Pr. 365 ; Williams v. Johnson, 2 Bro. i ; Abbott v. The Bakers' Asso., W. N. 1872, p. 31. ^ Cleveland Stone Co. v. Wallace, 52 Fed. Rep. 431. 6 Sawyer v. Kellogg, 7 Fed. Rep. 720 ; Leclanch Co. v. West. Elec. Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 276; Royal Co. v. Davis, 26 Fed. Rep. 293; Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Beach, 33 Fed. Rep. 248 ; Jennings v. Johnson, yi Fed. Rep. 364 ^ Myers v. Theller, 38 Fed. Rep. 607 ; Morgan's Sons Co. v. Troxell, 23 Hun, 632 ; Wolfe v. Hart, 4 Vict. L. R. Eq. 134; Fullwood V. Fullwood, W. N. 1873, p. 185 ; Henry v. Price, i Leg. Obs. 364. ' Sawyer v. Hubbard, 32 Fed. Rep. 388. 8 Meyer s. Bull, (C. C. A.) 58 Fed. Rep. 884; Wellman v. Ware, 46 Fed, Rep 289; Estes V. Worthington, 31 Fed. Rep. 154; Association v. Clarke, 26 Fed. Rep. 410; Glen Cove Mfg. Co. v. Ludeling, 22 Fed. Rep. 823; The Anglo Swiss Cond Milk Co. V. The Swiss Cond. Milk Co., W. N. 1871, p. 163; Day v. Buirning, i Leg. Obs. 205. 9 6 W. W. & A'B. Eq. 216. " 6 W. W. & A'B. Eq. 225.
