Odger's English Common Law

TRADE NAMES. 617
entered into partnership as manufacturers of blacking at 97, High Holborn.
About 1843 Charles Day's nephew and namesake induced an acquaintance
of his of the name of Martin to allow him to use the name of Martin in
connection with a new business for the manufacture and sale of blackiug,
though Martin was never taken into partnership. He set up business at
90\, Holborn Hill. It was held that the nephew Charles Day and his
friend Martin must be restrained from trading in blacking under their own
names, although the two men who created and owned the trade name
•" Day & Martin " were both dead and the business was carried on by the
executors of the survivor. 1
(ii.) The plaintiff's task is lighter where the defendant
assumes a new name for business purposes, or uses the name
of another without his authority, or uses a name closely
resembling the name of another already well known in the
trade, in a manner calculated to deceive the public. Here
the plaintiff will easily obtain an injunction to stop the use
of the name in future. He can also obtain damages for the
past injury done to his business, if he can establish
fraud. 2
Thus, where a Mr. Singer had acquired a world-wide reputation as a
manufacturer of sewing machines to which he gave his own name, it was
held by the House of Lords that the defendant (whose name was AVilson)
was not entitled to sell sewing machines with the name " Singer " upon
them, even though they were stamped with the defendant's own trade
mark, and the defendant expressly stated in his advertisement that the
machines were manufactured by himself. 3
Any advertisement, which suggests that the advertiser is a partner in a
well-known firm, or that his business is a branch or connected with the
business of such a firm, will be restrained if this be not the case. Thus
W. H. Burgess in the case cited on the preceding page was restrained from
.advertising himself as " late of 107, Strand." But a mere puffing advertisement
which falls short of such an assertion, even though it were quite
untrue, will not be restrained. 4
(iii.) "We proceed to consider cases in which the defendant
attaches to his goods the name of a place or thing, or of some
•character famous in history or fiction, which is already
i Croft v. Day (1843), 7 Beav. 84.
a Liebig Extract Co. v. Hanbury (1867), 17 L. T. 298 ; Pinet et die. v. Maison Louis
Pinet [1898] 1 Ch. 179. And now no one may trade under a name not his own without
registering the fact : 6 & 7 George V. c, 58, s. 1).
3 "Singer" Machine Manufacturers v. Wilson (1877), 3 App. Cas. 376. See
especially the judgment oE Lord Blackburn, ib., 306.
* See Cundey v. Lerw'M and Pike (1908), 99 L. T. 273 ; contrast Soohham v.
JPottage (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 91 ;
and see May v. May (1914), 31 B. P. C. 327.