/ 2{2 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. defendant was using it under such circumstances or in such manner as to put off his goods as the goods of the plaintiff." There are three recent decisions on this subject in the English ^ court of appeals, of which the most interesting is Brinsmead v. Brinsmead.^ The Brinsmead family, who, in 1894, were represented by the plaintiffs John Brinsmead & Sons, had been for sixty years in the business of making pianos, and " Brinsmead pianos " were famous. Thomas Edward Brinsmead and his sons George and Sidney Brins- mead were employed by the firm. In October, 1 894, they left that employ, and became themselves manufacturers of pianos, in part- nership with one Wilcox, under the name of T. Brinsmead & Sons. John Brinsmead & Sons applied for an injunction which was granted by Romer, J., prohibiting all the members of the new firm from carrying on the business of pianoforte manufacturers or dealers under the name of T. Brinsmead & Sons, or under any name so closely resembling the plaintiff's name as to be calculated to lead to the belief that the business carried on by the defendants was the plaintiff's business, " or under any name or style of which the word ' Brinsmead ' forms a part, without also adding thereto the words ' Thomas Edward,' or other the full Christian name of the oldest member of the firm whose name may be Brinsmead and without also including as part of the name or style, the surname of every other member of the firm whose name may not be Brins- mead, etc., etc." After this injunction, Wilcox at once retired from the partner- ship, and the name Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons was adopted by the defendants. They then transferred their business to a corporation "Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons, Limited, and immediately proceedings were instituted against this corpora- tion by John Brinsmead & Sons. North, J., granted a preliminary injunction as follows : — From using the name Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons, Limited, or the name of Brinsmead in connec- tion with the manufacture, sale or hire of pianos, without adding thereto an express statement that the defendant company are dis- tinct from and have no connection with the old firm of John Brins- mead & Sons." This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In considering the weight to be given to this case it must be remembered not only that there was a great deal of evidence of 1 12 L. T. R. 631 ; 13 L. T. R. 3 (Oct. 28, 1896).
