Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/345

329 CASES ANALOGOUS TO TRADE-MARKS. 329 five years before as *'Maison Pinaud,^^ and established at 87 Rue Richelieu, Paris. The defendant, whose name was differently spelled but was pronounced the same, removed to 91 Rue Richelieu and established another hat-shop, under the name of ^' Maison PineauJ'^ The court held that the defendant acted with the intention of profiting by the similarity of names, and to divert to himself the custom of the old house of Pinaud; that although he had an incontestable right to establish himself under his true name, yet he must be interdicted from unlawful competition, and measures must be taken to prevent confusion in the mind of the public between the two houses. Pinaud & Amour c. Pineau, 4 Annales, 86; the case of Bonnet et al, c. Henri Delisle, 4 An- nales, 301, illustrates the same principle. In the case of Dorvault c. Hureaux, 4 Annales, 125, the plaintiffs had for about twenty- five years used as a sign and upon their labels and circulars the words "Pharmacie Centrale de France.'' The defendants had as their sign the words "Pharmacie Rationelle," but added "Cen- trale de France." This fact was recognized by the court as an at- tempt to create confusion between the two establishments, and the defendants were prohibited from the further use of the latter-men- tioned words. In Muller c. Compagnie Immobiliere,^ the plaintiff had for more than fifteen years carried on the "Hotel de la Paix." The defendants built a hotel on the same street and gave it the same namfe. The court held that the words "Hotel de la Paix" were indicative and characteristic of the hotel owned by Muller, and that those words could not be used by others in the same business without violating his rights. The cases of the "Banque du Commerce et de I'Industrie c, Banque Centrale du Commerce et de I'Industrie,"^ of "Banque Populaire c. Banque Populaire d'Escompte," ^ of the signs "En- trepot d'lvry" and "Chautier du Grand Ivry," * of "Chauchard & Compagnie c. Dreux-Bussienne," ^ of " Samie c. Compagnie des Eaux Thermales de Royat," « of "Moet c, Moet et Chandon," ^ show how careful the French courts are to prevent confusion in the minds of the public, insisting that each trader should stand " Ibid. 234. •* Bulletin Officiel, 222. " Dulloz Jurisprudence G^ndrale, 1884. Cours d'Appel, p. 84. " Dulloz Jurisprudence Generale, 1884. Cours d'Appel, p. 226. ' Ibid. 1887. Cours d'Appel, p. 220.
 * 8 Annales, 265. ' 29 Annales, 231.