Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/312

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
286
HARVARD LAW REVIEW.
286

286 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, enjoining the unexplained sale of other goods to a customer calling for plaintiff's article, there being no infringement of any trade mark, "dress," or label.^ Business Names. A business name is that name under which a business is car- ried on, whatever it may be, whether a personal name, as is com- monly the case, or not. There is no exclusive right in a name, merely as a name,^ pro- tection being given, as in trade mark and ** dressing up" cases, only after a right has been established by actual user in business;^ but when so used, the owner will be protected in the exclusive use of his business name.* It has been heretofore held that a medical man,^ or an artist,^ had not such a business interest in his name as to entitle him to protection ; but in the case of a medical man, at any rate, the strong dissent since expressed by eminent judges from the decision in Clark v. Freeman,^ and the peculiar facts of Olin V. Bate,^ make it seem probable that when the point again arises the rule now apparently established may not be applied. While a business name is property, passing to the personal rep- resentative,^ a distinction, growing out of the nature of the prop- erty, is made against an assignee in bankruptcy, who does not take an exclusive right as against the bankrupt.^ The right to a business name is very greatly qualified however, by the right of others of the same name to use it; ^^ but others of the same name must exercise their right in such a way as not to lead to confu- 1 Enoch Morgan's Sons v. Wendover, 43 Fed. Rep. 420; American Fibre Chamois Co. V. De Lee, 67 Fed. Rep. 329. 2 Du Bulay v. Du Bulay, L. R. 2 P. C. 430; Phelan v. Collender, 6 Hun, 244; Hallett V. Cumston, no Mass. 29. ^ Beazley v. Soares, 22 Ch. D. 660 ; Lawson v. Bank of London, 18 C. B. 84.

  • Hohner v. Gratz, 52 Fed. Rep. 871 ; Burke v. Cassin, 45 CaL 467.

5 Clark V. Freeman, 11 Beav. 112; Olin v. Bate, 98 III. 53. ^ Martin v. Wright, 6 Sim. 297. ' Per Cairns, L. J., in Maxwell v. Hogg, L. R. 2 Ch, 307 ; Malins, V. C, in Spring- head Spring Co. v. Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. 561 ; Lord Selborne, C, in In re Riviera, 26 Ch. D. 48; Kay, J., in Williams v. Hodge & Co. 84 L. T. (Journal), 134. 8 Burke v. Cassin, 45 Cal. 467. 9 Helmboldt v. H. T. Helmboldt Mfg. Co., 53 How. Pr. 453. 10 Dence v. Mason, W. N. 1877, p. 23, 1878, p 42; Hallett v. Cumston, no Mass. 29; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245 ; Massam v. Thorley Food Co., 6 Ch. D. 574; Prince Met. Paint Co. v. Carbon Met. Paint Co., Codd. Dig. 209 ; Meneely v. Meneely, 62 N. Y. 427 ; De Long v. De Long, 39 N. Y. Supp. 903 ; 7 App. Div. 33 ; American Cereal Co. v. Eli Petti John Cereal Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 903.