Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/313

287 UNFAIR COMPETITION. 28/ sion.^ In Johann Hoff v. Tarrant & Co.,^ the plaintiff had sold ''Hoffs Malt Extract" largely in the United States. The defend- ant began to import and sell malt extract made by Leopold Hoff. Held, that his labels must be '* Leopold Hoff's Malt Extract," and not simply ** Hoff's Malt Extract." If the right to the fair use of a business name may be qualified by the prior use by another person of the same name,^ obviously a use with fraudulent intent will be restrained,* and where the user is not of that name it is a badge of fraud ; ^ but in all these cases except the last mentioned the burden is upon the plaintiff clearly to make out a fraudulent intent.^ A name adopted by a corporation stands in the same category as one adopted by an individual/ and if it tends to create confusion by its similarity to one already in use its use will be enjoined; '^ and even when it is adopted in good faith and is the name of an officer of the company.^ But this rule against adopted corporate names does not,, for obvious reasons, apply when the plaintiffs name is descriptive.^^ Furthermore, a merely colorable right to a business name will be disregarded, and its use enjoined ; ^^ for example, a 1 Turton v, Turton, 42 Ch. D. 128; McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245; Johann Hoff V. Tarrant & Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 163; Chas. S. Higgins Co. v, Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 462 ; contra, De Long v. De Long Co., 39 N. Y. Supp. 903 ; 7 App- Div. 33. 2 71 Fed. Rep. 163. « Johann Hoff v. Tarrant & Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 163. Stonebreaker, 33 Md. 252 ; Holmes, Booth, & Haydens v. The Holmes, Booth, & Atwood Mfg. Co., 37 Conn. 278 ; Landreth v. Landreth, 22 Fed. Rep. 41 ; Brown Chem. Co. V. F. Stearnes & Co., 67 Fed. Rep. 360 ; Clark Thread Co. v. Armitage, 6-] Fed. Rep. 886. ^ Goodyear v. Day, 22 Fed. Rep. 44 ; De Youngs v. Jung, 27 N. Y. Supp. 370. « Turton v. Turton, 42 Ch. D. 128 ; Rogers v. Rogers, 11 Fed. Rep. 495 ; Iowa Seed Co. V. Dorr, 70 Iowa, 481 ; Rogers v. Simpson, 54 Conn. 527 ; Brown Chem. Co. v. Meyer, 31 Fed. Rep. 453; 139 U. S. 540. 7 Goodyear v. Day, 22 Fed. Rep. 644. 8 Clark Thread Co. v. Armitage, 67 Fed. Rep. 896; (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 936; Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co. v. R. W. Rogers Co., 66 Fed. Rep. 56 ; Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co. V. Rogers & S. Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 495; Horton Mfg. Co. v. Horton Mfg. Co., 17 Reporter, 261 ; De Long v. De Long Co., 89 Hun, 399 ; Van Auken Co. v. Van Auken Co., 57 111. App. 240; Hendricks v. Montagu, 17 Ch. D. 638; Nat. Folding Box & Paper Co. v. Nat. Folding Box Co., 13 Reports, 60. " Chas. S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 462. 10 Australian Co. v. Australian Museum Co., W. N. 1880, p. 6; Goodyear Co. v. Goodyear Co., 128 U. S. 598; India & China Tea Co. v. Teede, W. N. 187 1, p. 241. 11 Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker, 39 Conn. 450; Southern v. Reynolds, 12 L. T. N. s. 75 ; Croft V. Day, 7 Beav. 84.
 * Taylor v. Taylor, 2 Eq. Rep. 290 ; Clark v. Clark, 25 Barb, ^d ; Stonebreaker v.