Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/323

UNFAIR COMPETITION, 297 fact are not,^ if essential facts are misstated.^ or if the plaintiffs business is illegal,^ the court will not give its protection. The relative rather than the absolute nature of the plaintiff's right in Unfair Competition and trade mark cases is emphasized by the prominence which the question of the defendant's intent as affect- ing the plaintiff's right assumes. So far as the plaintiff's right to an injunction is concerned, it is universally held that, the plaintiff showing a right, and an invasion of that right being proved, the de- fendant must be enjoined. And as the text of an invasion of a right in a trade mark, " dress " of goods, business name, or trade name case, is the same, namely, whether what the defendant does has caused or is likely to cause ^ confusion or fraud, cases under all these heads are authority for this proposition.* But it has been held that the absence of a fraudulent intention upon the defendant's part would prevent an inquiry as to damages,^ or even an account,^ while in Cartier v. Carlisle ^ and Dixon v. Fawcus ^ it was held that the intent was wholly immaterial upon the question of an account, and to the same effect are Burgess v. Hills ^^ and Stonebraker v. Stonebraker.^^ In Southorn v, Reynolds ^^ ^q^ an account and an inquiry as to damages were given. When the infringement consists of the resale by a retailer of spurious goods marked in violation of plaintiff's rights, the retailer having no notice of the fact, Romilly, 1 Cal. Fig Syrup Qo.v. Putnam, (C. C. A.) 69 Fed. Rep. 740. 2 Manhattan Med. Co. v. Wood, 108 U. S. 218. 8 German Asso. v. Oldenberg Asso., 46 111. App. 281 ; Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Portsmouth Brewing Co., 30 Atl. Rep. 346 (N. H.) ; Electric Co. v. Perry, 75 Feu. Rep. 898. 4 Hendricks v. Montague, 17 Ch. D. d^'. Lever z'. Goodwin, 36 Ch. D. i; Orr, Ewing & Co. V. Johnson, 40 L. T. N. s. 307 ; Shaw v. Pilling, 175 Pa. St, 78 ; Wiest Co. 7^ Weeks Co., 7 Kulp, 505; Listmann Co, v. Wm. Listmann Co., 88 Wis. 334; Taendsticksfabriks v. Myers, 139 N. Y. 364. s Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 182 ; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245 ; The Amos- keag Co. v. Garner, 4 Am. L. T, n. s. 176; The Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 3 App. Cas, 376 ; Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. The Holmes, Booth & Atwood Mfg. Co , 37 Conn. 278; Graham & Co. v. Ker, Uods & Co., 3 Beng, L. R. App. 4; Barnett v. Leuchars, 13 L. T. n. s. 495; Clement v. Maddick, 15 Giff.98; Hendricks v. Montague, 17 Ch. D. 638; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Loog, 18 Ch. D. 417; Bass v. Guggenheimer, 69 Fed. Rep. 271 ; Cuervo ?/. Landauer, 63 Fed. Rep. 1003; Chas. S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 462. ^ Weed V. Petersen, 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 178. 7 Edelsten v. Edelsten, i DeG. J. & S. 185. ^ 26 Beav. 244. 8 31 Beav. 292. " ^Z Md. 252. 9 3 E. & E. 537. 12 12 L. T. N. s. 75. 40