EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT of 'merchandise, and the particular descrip tion of goods comprised in such a class, by which the trade-mark has been or is intended to be appropriated. This provision of the act, it has been said, clearly contemplates an ac tual business conducted by the person or per sons named, the adoption of a trade-mark in that business, and its appropriation to a par ticular ' class of merchandise ' produced or sold by the parties making the registration. As to the third question, however, the answer is in the affirmative. Even though the label lacks the characteristics of a valid trade mark and cannot be protected as such, a bill in equity will lie to enjoin the perpetration of a fraud which injures plaintiff's business and occasions him a pecuniary loss. "The next question for consideration is whether a union label, though considered not a technical trade-mark, is entitled to protec tion in the absence of legislation expressly
473
conferring it. It by no means follows that the label is not entitled to protection merely because the law for the protection of technical trade-marks cannot be invoked for that pur pose. There are, however decisions which in effect so declare, and, it is believed, errone ously." Consideration of the various arguments lead the author to conclude that " a court of equity should protect by injunction a union label shown or admitted to be of value, provided there is nothing in the contents of the label which amounts to an infraction of the rules of morality or public policy." This valuable paper concludes with a dis cussion of legislation, in a number of states passed to protect the label from infringement. The constitutionality of such legislation, which has uniformly been upheld, and various questions in regard to enforcement are treated under this head.
