The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-11-16 00:00:00

THE USE OF A NAME.

The canes of Bookharn v. Pottage" has bees before the
Loris Justices of Appealln the CAttt of Chvocery, sad was
au eppeal trow a deeteloa of VlcoCluencellor

The plaintiff, an old-established tailor in the city of
Oxford, some )ram ago to 1 into wrirterehip two
brothers, named Ephraint and Samuel Pottage,
who had previously been in his employment.
In consequence of differences which arose between
them this partnership was, in June, 1871, dis-
solved by a deeres in • suit inetitnted for the
purpose by the present plaintiff, and thereupon the
trade name of " Hookham and Co." was substituted
for the trade name of "Hookharn and E. and S.
Pottage," which had been used during the partnership.
After this the brothers Pottage at first commenced
business together, but in April last the present de-
fendant, S. Pottage, separated from his brother, and
took a ehop seven doors from that of the plaintiff, and
put nj over the sh..p-front the words "S. Pottage,
from Hookham and Pottage." After some correspond-
enoe the plaintiff flied the present bill, in order to
obtain an injunction to restrain the defendant from this
use of his name, id, the ground that it was calculated
to mislead his customers; and he produced evidence to
show that some persons had entered the defendant's
shop in mistake for that of his own. l'hotographs of
the defendant's shop were produced in court, and it op-
peered that the words S. Pottage" were in !somewhat
larger letters than the words " id ixtkliam and Pottage,"
and that the word 'from" wies in smaller I. Uwe than
any of the other words. Also the word " Hookham "
WAN just over the entrance to the defendant'. shop.
The Vice-Chancellor granted an injunction to restrain
the defendant from using the name Hoak= in such
• way as to mislead. The defendant appealed.
Mr. Cotton, Q.C., and Mr. E. Cutler, for the des
fondant., argued that he had a right to tell the world
the fact that be had formerly been with the firm of
Hookham and Pottage.
Mr. Jackson (with whom was Mr. Glasse, Q.C.)
contended that the defendant had no right to tell the
I truth in a way calculated to mislead.
Lord Justice James quite agreed with Mr. Cotton
I that the defendant had a right to say to the world that
' he wae the Pottage who had been with Hookham and
Pottage, and to avail himself of the reputation and the
confidence which he might gain from the statement
of that fact. But, on the other hand, the defendant
was not entitled to use the name " Hookham and
Pottage" In a way calculated to represent to the
world that the business was that of Hookham and
Pottage, or that Hookham had any interest in it.
The Vice-Chancellor held that what the defendant had
done was calculated to mislead • casual passer-by. His
Lordship could not differ from the Vice Chancellor's
view that the defendant had not taken sufficient care to
dieriagnish his shop from that of the plaintiff. It was
entirely a question of fact, and his Lordship was of
opinion that the defendant ought to have put up his
own name in a more conspicuous way, so that no one
could possibly be misled. The plaintiff was entitled to
an ii-junction, and the appeal must be dismissed with
costa.
Lord Justice Mellish concurred.