THE DECEPTIVE USE OF ONES OWN NAME. 255 basis of the decision. "Chancery protects trademarks^ upon the ground that a party shall not be permitted to sell his own goods as the goods of another ; and therefore he will not be allowed to use the names, marks, letters or other indicia of another, by which he may pass off his goods to purchasers as the manufacture of another." It would be needless to give here in detail the many similar cases in which injunctions have been granted because the danger of confusion due to the similarity of name between the plaintiff and defendant was increased by the adoption by the defendant of colors, forms and designs used by the plaintiff.^ Some of the most important are referred to below in discussing the extent of the relief which should be granted. Williams v. Brooks^ is worthy of special notice because the forms of packages used by both the plaintiff and defendant were in general use in the trade, and o^^- XAxeXy ptiblici Juris ; but when used by a person of the same name they were deceptive and therefore their use by him was enjoined, although any one whose name was different might have used them freely.* Neither is it necessary to discuss elaborately the numerous cases in which injunctions have been refused.^ In one of the latest of these, Duryea v. National Starch Co.,^ the plaintiff and appellee was the proprietor of the business of manufacturing the well- known Duryea's starch at Glen Cove. The defendants, who were all named Duryea, formed a partnership to make and sell starch under the name Duryea & Co. The case arose on a motion for a preliminary injunction which was granted by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in reversing this decision says: 1 Throughout the opinion the plaintiff's name and indicia are inaccurately spoken of as a trademark. 2 E. g. Landreth v. Landreth, 22 Fed. Rep. 41 ; Stonebraker v. Stonebraker, 34 Md. 444; Devlin v. Devlin, 69 N. Y. 212; Shaver v. Shaver, 54 la. 208; Britannia Co. v. Parker, 39 Conn. 450; Williams v. Brooks, 50 Conn. 278; Meyer v. Bull Vegetable Medicine Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 884; Pillsbury v. Pillsbury, 64 Fed. Rep. 841.
- 50 Conn. 278.
- See Baker v. Baker, 77 Fed. Rep. 181.
6 E. g. Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540; Gilman v. Hunnewell, 122 Mass. 139; Meneely w. Meneely, 62 N. Y. 427; Rogers v. Rogers, 53 Conn. 121 ; Rogers v. Simpson, 54 Conn. 527 ; R. W. Rogers v. William Rogers Mfg. Co., 70 F, R. 1019; Duryea v. National Starch Co., 79 Fed. Rep. 651; Fish Wagon Co. v. La Bfelle Wagon Co., 82 Wisconsin, 546. ^ 79 Fed. Rep. 651, 652.
