Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/314

288 288 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, written permission from one of plaintiff's name to the defendant does not justify its use, the licensor having no actual interest.^ The exclusive right to use a descriptive phrase as a business name may perhaps be acquired by long user; as, for example, the right by a maker of taper sleeve pulleys to call his establishment " Taper Sleeve Pulley Works " ; ^ or by a coal dealer selling coal at a guinea a ton to call his business *' The Guinea Coal Co." ; ^ or by a clothier to call his store '* Mechanic's Store."* The owner of a name may also lose his rights in it by allowing another to use it as a business name.^ The right to use a name may be given by assignment, and the right given may be qualified by a condition ; but a purchaser without notice will take the right to use the name free of the condition, and so of a purchaser with notice from the inno- cent vendee.^ An exception to the general rule as to the assignabil- ity of business names may exist upon grounds of public policy, in the case where the name has acquired a special significance indicative of personal skill or attention,^ and contracts whereby one parts with the right to use his own name in a certain trade will in general be jealously viewed by the courts, and not extended beyond their plain terms.^ The right to a business name need not be exclusive. It is sufficient if the plaintiff has a right in common with others, while the defendant has no right.^ Trade Names. We have seen that a business name is that name, whatever it may be, by which a going business is known, and which in a way concentrates in itself all the good will the public has for the busi- ness. It is obviously a thing of very great value. A trade name has many points of resemblance to a business name, but it is, 1 Wolfe V. Barnett, 24 La. Ann. 97 ; s. C. 13 Am. Rep. 11 1 ; Shrimpton v. Laight, 18 Beav, 164. But see Hallett v. Cumston, no Mass. 29; and conf. Mass. Pub. Stat., ch. 76, § 6. 2 Gray v. Taper Sleeve Pulley Works, 16 Fed. Rep. 436. 3 Lea V. Haley, L. R. 5 Ch. 161. 4 Weinstock v. Marks, 108 Cal. 529. See also Milner v. Reed, Bryce on T. M. 90 ; Mailer v. Davis, 3 The Times L. R. 221. s Birmingham Brewery Co. v. Liverpool Vinegar Co., W. N. 1888, p. 139; Marquis of Londonderry v. Russell, 3 The Times L. R. 360. ® Oakes v. Tonsmleire, 49 Fed. Rep. 447. "' Mayer v. Flanagan, 34 S. W. Rep. 785 (Texas). 8 Chat. Med. Co. v. Thetford, 58 Fed. Rep. 347. ^ Southorn v. Reynolds, 12 L. T. N. s. 75 ; Clark v. Armitage, (C. C. A.) 74 Fed. Rep. 936.