THE DECEPTIVE USE OF ONE'S OWN NAME. 26 1 tion which cannot be prevented, and the burden must He where it falls. No doubt the courts have sometimes been led to grant more stringent decrees than they would otherwise have done, because they were impressed with the defendant's fraudulent character, and convinced that if he were given an inch he would take an ell ; ^ but almost all the injunctions above quoted were intended as definitions of the plaintiff's rights irrespective of the defendant's motives.^ It is an important fact, however, which must not be overlooked, that when a business has been begun by imitation, labels and ad- vertisements which would otherwise be innocent may operate as a continuation of the original fraud, and should for that reason be stopped.^ The previous conduct of the defendant is, therefore, in every case one of the circumstances to be considered in determin- ing what form of injunction is appropriate, or what decree should be made in contempt proceedings. Indeed, all the surrounding facts may have a bearing on the question of what efforts should be required of a new maker to prevent his goods from passing as those of the old one. The precautions which would be reasonable and effective in the case of pianos may be unsuitable as applied to flour, and certain articles, such as plated ware, present peculiarly difficult problems. The cardinal principle that anything which may deceive s prima facie wrongful, and should be prevented if possible, is the only safe guide, and it is most encouraging to see that, as the commer- cial value and importance of long-established, business reputations, and the opportunities for making unjust gains by fraudulent imita- tions are more clearly recognized, the courts are more and more willing to grant the needed protection, and show an uncompromis- ing determination to do their part towards maintaining commercial honesty and fair dealing. W. L. Putnam. i Montgomery v. Thompson, [1891] App. Cas. 217; 8 Patent Reports, Eng. 426, 429. 2 (E. g. Reddaway v. Banham, Singer Mfg. Co. v. June, Baker v. Sanders, Baker v. Baker, 87 Fed. Rep. 209.)
- Cf. LePage Co. v. Russia Cement Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 941, 946.
