256 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. " It cannot be denied that by continuous and rightful use for forty years, the name of ' Duryea's Starch ' had become identified with its ' source of manufacture,' and that an attempt by persons of the name of * Duryea ' or of any other name, to put upon the market their own product under the name of ' Duryea's Starch ' could be suppressed. Inasmuch as the defendants have not called their starch by this well- known name, and have not assimilated the labels upon their packages to those long used by the manufacturers at Glen Cove, the question is whether the defendants have made such an unnecessary and unfair use of the name of * Duryea ' as to deserve the unfavorable criticism of a court of equity." In the various Rogers cases arising out of imitation of plated forks and spoons and similar articles bearing the name of Rogers, the plaintiffs have encountered two difficulties. First, there are a number of different manufacturers all entitled to use the word " Rogers " so that persons seeking the goods of any particular maker must necessarily scrutinize their purchase carefully. Second, the method of applying the word is to stamp it on the under side of the shank of the fork or spoon, which is much the most natural place. Accordingly, although the word "Rogers" thus stamped is likely to mislead, the courts have not yet seen their way to interfere, provided the imitator uses his initials. He could not be required to stamp his name elsewhere, nor to omit it, and so long as it appears on the shank, it will cause confusion and deceive. Something might be gained by requiring him to use a distinctive name or device which would become the short trade name of the goods, coupling it with a statement that it is made by him; or the form of injunction used in Brinsmead v. Brinsmead might be adopted.^ Wherever relief is granted, this question of the form of the in- junction is of great importance. It is always hard to determine what restrictions can reasonably be imposed upon the public to pro- tect a plaintiff's reputation and good will ; and those which hamper a man's use of his own name may be very onerous and must be cautiously imposed. There is no difficulty in requiring a defend- ant to use his full name and to refrain from using any of the plaintiff's colors, forms and symbols. But suppose his christian name is the same as the plaintiff's, or suppose the plaintiff does not accompany his name with any indicia, so that his product can 1 Vide supra, page 252.
