Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/305

UNFAIR COMPETITION. 2/9 Imitation of the name of a hotel was restrained in Howard v, Henriques,^ Woodward v. Lazar,^ McCardell v, Peck,^ and Wood V. Sands,* and imitation of an address in The Glen & Hall Mfg. Co. V. Hall.5 In Orr, Ewing & Co. v. Johnson,^ the plaintiffs had an unregis- tered trade mark for yarn of which a picture of two elephants was a feature. Owing to this, the plaintiffs' ticket had acquired among the natives of India the name " Bhe Hathi," or "Two Elephant" ticket. The plaintiffs' trade mark had been refused registration on the ground that ** elephant " trade marks were common to the trade. The defendant began to export yarn, and to place upon it a ticket of a similar shape and a similar color to plaintiffs' ticket (the shape and color being common to the trade), and having upon it two elephants differing in appearance. Held that, though it was not probable that English purchasers or Indian dealers would be deceived, it was not improbable that the ultimate purchasers in India would be, in consequence of the defendant's ticket being cal- culated to obtain the same name of " Bhe Hathi " as the plaintiffs*. Injunction. In Hohner lu Gratz, the plaintiff sold harmonicas in the United States, marked with his name. The defendant put harmonicas on the market, marked with his own name in small letters, and in large letters the words " Improved Hohner." Injunction and ac- count. Again, in Investor Publishing Co. v, Dobinson,^ the plaintiff published a paper called ** United States Investor." The defend- ant, a corporation of the same name, began publication of a paper called " Investor," stated in its columns to be published by the Investor Publishing Co. Held a case for equitable relief. In Gouraud v. Trust,^ the plaintiff, whose name was originally Trust, changed it to Gouraud, and established a business in toilet preparations. His sons, who had not changed their name, began to sell similar goods under the name of " Gouraud's Sons." In- junction.^^ Among minor matters dealt with it has been held that an in- junction would issue against the use by defendant of testimonials 1 3 Sandf. 725. * Fed. Cas. 17963. "^ 52 Fed. Rep. 871. 2 21 Cal. 448. ^ 6u N. Y. 226. 8 72 Fed. Rep. 603. « 28 How. Pr. 120. 6 40 L. T. N. s. 307. » 3 Hun, 627. 10 See England v. N. Y. Pub. Co., 8 Daly, 375.