Names of Literary Compositions. were different. The Commercial Advertiser1, though frequently known as the New York Commercial Advertiser, is not infringed by a journal of the latter name, especially, since the defendant's paper is dissimilar in type and arrangement, has another title in conspicu ous letters below the principal one, and is an evening paper devoted to general news, while the plaintiff's paper is a morning one. confined to commercial, financial and ship ping news. In many of these cases, the court distinctly says there is no fraudulent conduct on the part of the defendant such as to mislead the public and supplant the plain tiff in the use of his good will2. When we vOme to consider the names which have been enjoined, we shall find that it is difficult to reconcile the decisions and must remember that the allegations of the pleadings, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the forcible presentation of the case by an able advocate, often explain why a decision is made for one party or another. The character of the public to which the periodicals appeal must be considered, and so La Cronisa receives no redress against El Cronista3, as Spaniards, for whom the papers are intended, would not be deceived. Likewise, the United States Investor, pub lished at Boston, is not infringed by Investor, a financial guide to Southern Cali fornia, published at Los Angeles under a different form4. There are a number of cases in which a name of newspapers has been protected by the courts5. For example, the owners of the 'Comí. Adver. Ass. v. Haynes, 49 N. Y. Supp. 938. 'F.. g., defendant expressly says his paper is a new one, Snowden v. Noah, i Hopk. 347. 'Stephens i'. De Conto, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 47, La Crónica was dead anyway. 'Investor Co. v. Dobinson, 82 Fed. 56. "The use of similar type (Corns v. Griffiths 1873 W. N. 93) and the undue prominence given a similar catchword are elements in favor of restraint of defendant's conduct. Chance v. Sheppard. ю Cent. L. J. 124.
645
Real John Bull" had injunction against the use of that name by another, either alone or in connection with the word "old"; the Na tional Police Gazette, frequently known simply as the Police Gazette, is infringed by the United States Polite Gazette1; the Bedford shire Express and General Advertiser for the counties of Cambridge, etc., is infringed by the Bedfordshire Express and General Adver tiser for the county8; the Grocer and Oil Trade Review, published at London, is in fringed by the Grocer and Wine Merchant and Irish Brewer and Distiller, published at Dub lin, though the latter represented a different branch of the trade"; the Commercial Trav eller, often referred to as the Traveller, is in fringed by the Traveller10; the Plumber and Decorator, Gas and Sanitary Engineering Journal is infringed by the Decorator and Plumber11; the Edinburgh Correspondent is protected12; the London Journal is infringed by the London Daily Joitrnal13; ihe. Summit Record is also protected14; and injunction was granted against the Grocer at the suit of the American Grocer, which was formerly known as the Grocer, and often still so called15. The last-named case is a typical one of fraud, though the price of the defendant's paper was less, it was of about the same form and size, the defendant had formerly been con nected with the plaintiff's paper, located his office in the same block and on the same side of the street as the plaintiff, and re moved when he did. An English court held that Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chron "Edwards v. Benbow, Dig. 33 (1821). 'Matsell v. Flanagan, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 459. "Lodges v. Ray, ю Cent. L. J. 124. •Reed v. O'Mara, 21 Ir. L. R. 216: see Li censed Victuallers' Newspaper v. Bingham, 38 Ch. D. 139. '"Carey v. Goss, 11 Ont. R. 619. "Dale v. Smith, 17 T. L. R. 177. "Edinburgh Correspondent Newspaper Re., i Ct. Sess. Cas. I 4O7n. "Ingram v. Stiff, 5 Jur. N. S. 947. "Lane v. Smythe, 46 N. J. Eq. 443. '"Am. Grocer Ass. v. Grocer Co., 25 Hun. 398.
