Odger's English Common Law

TRADE NAMES. 615
to his house, even though he thus causes inconvenience to a
neighbour whose house is called by the same name. 1
But the
law will not allow a man to label goods which he sells with
any name he pleases, if the result will be to mislead and
deceive the public into an erroneous belief as to the quality
and manufacture of the goods. The law recognises no pro-
perty in the name of an ancient family or of a particular
mansion, but it does protect the name of a tradesman who
has established a reputation for a particular commodity.
Yet a man cannot, as a rule, be prohibited from using his
own name ; otherwise to bear a well-known name might
become a disability. There is clearly a difference between a
case in which a man uses his own name and one in which he
purposely assumes a well-known name in order to deceive the
public.
And it is not only by the improper assumption or use of a
name that a man may pass off his goods as and for the goods
of another manufacturer whose name is better known in the
trade. He may do so by wrapping up his goods in packages
of a certain size or appearance, or by using a particular kind
of label or issuing advertisements of a misleading character.
" No one has any right to represent his goods as the goods of
another," 2 or to do anything which is calculated to have that
effect, even though it was not his intention to create that
impression. In all such cases the person whose wares he has
consciously or unconsciously imitated may bring an action
claiming damages or an injunction.
There are four cases which must be considered separately :
(i.) Where the defendant trades under his own name.
(ii.) Where the defendant trades under or otherwise uses a
name not his own.
(iii.) Where the defendant attaches to his goods the name
of a place or thing, or of any character in history or fiction,
which is already associated with the goods manufactured by
another.
(iv.) Where a man places his own goods in wrappers or
i Dav v Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294.
* Per Lord Halsbury, 1>. C, in. Reddaiwy v. Bam/wrn,, [1896,]' A. .C.,at p. 204.
—