Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/304

278 2/8 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. and bottled it as Hennessy's Brandy in bottles bearing a label sufficiently similar to that used by the plaintiff on his bottles to deceive unwary or careless purchasers. An injunction was granted.^ In Hostetter Co. v. Bru^ggemann Co.,2 the plaintiff made and sold " Hostetter's Bitters," and owned the trade marks, brands, labels, etc., used in the business. The defendant manufactured bitters very similar in appearance and flavor, which it sold in bulk to its customers, advising them to refill empty Hostetter bottles and put them on the market as genuine. Held, that in so advis- ing its customers it was guilty of a wrong which equity would enjoin.^ In Merriam v. Texas Siftings Publishing Co.,* the defendant advertised a reprint of the 1847 edition of Webster's Dictionary, the copyright having expired, as " Latest edition, 10,000 new words, etc. Old price ;^8, the new, low price of $1 made possible by improvements in machinery," etc. Held, on application of the owner of the copyright of subsequent editions, that the defend- ant be enjoined against the further circulation of such misleading advertisements, and that, because of their already extensive circu- lation a printed slip must thereafter be attached to each book stat- ing it to be a reprint of the edition of 1847.^ In Cave v, Myers,^ the plaintiff carried on business in Wigmore Street under the name of ** H. J. Cave & Sons." The defendant, who occupied a corner shop in Wigmore Street, near by, adopted the name of " Cavendish House " for his establishment, and had it painted up by his express order over the frontage, in place of his name ** Myers," in such a manner that " Cave " alone appeared upon the Wigmore Street side. Injunction."^ 1 Gillott V. Kettle, 3 Duer, 624, accord. See Krauss v. Jos. R. Peebles Sons Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 585. 2 46 Fed. Rep. 188. ^ See Hostetter v. Fries, 17 Fed. Rep. 620; Hostetter v. Von Vorst, 62 Fed. Rep. 600; Hostetter v. Becker, 73 Fed. Rep. 297 ; Hunt v. Maniere, 34 L. J. Ch. 144; Hos- tetter V. Anderson, i Vict. Rep. Eq. 7. See also Evans z^. Von Laer, 32 Fed. Rep. 153. fi Accord, Harper z/. Pearson, 3 L. T. N. s. 547 ; Fullwood v. FuUwood, 9 Ch. D. 176; Selby V. Anchor Tube Co., W. N. 1877, P- 191 '•> Thorley's Cattle Food Co. v. Massam, 14 Ch. D. 763. 6 Seton, 4th edition, 238. ^ Accord, Walker v. Alley, 13 Grant Up. Can. Ch. 366 ; Mallen v. Davis, 3 The Times L. R. 221 ; Colton v. Thomas, 3 Brewst. 308; Devlin v. Devlin, 69 N. Y. 212; Genin V. Chadsey, cited 2 Brewst. 330 ; Hookam v. Pottage, L. R. 8 Ch. 91 ; Glenny v. Smith, 13 L. T. N. s. II ; Scott V. Scott, 16 L. T. n. s. 143.
 * 41 Fed. Rep. 944. •