Morning journal and courier., 1891-07-09
ssHUB,, oLorHrrG HOUSE.
Night to the Trade Name Affirmed
 sf bv Iud1e Ha11

Night r0 the Trade Name AHrmed
 by Judge Hall.
 In the case of E. s. Kendall & Go. vs Nathan Cobe, lately tried before Judge J. M. Hall in the superior court, Hartford county, the following memorandum of his decision has been filed. The decision will be interesting to the business public, as tending to show to what extent trade names may be exclusively used and pro- tected. 0. J. Cole and c. H. Clarke, at torneys for the plaintiffs; c. E. Perkins and Arthur Perkins, attorneys for the de- fendant:
 MEMORANDUM.
 The evidence shows that the plaintiffs had es- tablished q clothing store in Hartford, and wide y advertised their place of business as The ''Hub'' Clothing House, by which name it has fore the Commencement of this action; and by the exclusive use of which name they had con stituted for themselves 9 trade name, business June 6, 1890, as appears from evidence, the de fendant began business in Rockville, as the agent of one Adams of using the plaintiffs as their tradename and sign The de- fendant claims that he acted innocently in his House, and did not know of the existence of the plaintiffs place of business by that name in ,sso M sha n0ie tg" claimed the said words, Fhe Hub Clothing House. as their trade.name, sign and mark. and nection with his store. The defendant, however, did not desist, but continued to use said name on November 1. 189O he established another store by the same name at Manchester, ten miles nearer to Hartford for the sale .+s of the same ne sued cards hand-bills and circulars and pub lished advertisements in connection with said branch store.
 It is shown quite clearly that the trade of the plaintiffs, owing to it's established reputation and extensive advertisement was very large, both in name and advertisements of the defendant were calculated to deceive the public, and lead them both at Rockville and Manchester were branches of the plaintiffs house at Hartford. Upon such state of facts the plaintiffs entitled to the protection of court of equity on principles an- alogous to those applicable in cases of the inva- sion of trade mark Glen Hall Manufacturing Go. vs Hall, 61 N. Y. 2N, and cases there cited. s'The ground on which courts of equity afford relief in this class of cases is the injury to the party aggrieved, and the imposition upon the public by causing them to believe that the goods of one man or firm are the production of anoth, er." The existence of the consequences does not fraud or an evil intent does or does not exist The quo animo therefore, would seem to be an immaterial inquiry. Holmes Booth 4 Hayden vs. Holmes Booth & Atwood Manufacturing Co.,,
 The only question of difficulty in such cases is to fix the limits to which courts shall extend pro- lection. I cannot believe that equity confines such protection to town lnes or to city limits, as is claimed by the defendant.
 The principle upon which equity affords relief in this class of cases seems to require that pro tection should be extended to such limits to afford a reasonable safeguard against invasion of others seeking to pirate the trade name.
 It is in proof of this that the plaintiffs were well and favorably known in and were en- toying large trade, both from Rockville place but twenty miles from Hartford, and from Man herewith by railroad, and that the plaintiffs had extensively advertised their business and trade nams in both said places. Can it be said to be unreasonable to protect an established trade name within circuit of twenty miles from the place where the business is conducted, always as- stunning that it is easily accessible to the public by reasonable public c0nveyanceS? I think not, and shall therefore enjoin the defendant from using the plaintiffs trade-name, sign and mark, either at Rockville or Manchester, as prayed for in the complaint.
 / The plaintiffs claim one thousand dollars dam ages in their complaint Every trespass on property gives 8 right to nominal damages When the plaintiff seeks more than this he must offer evidence to show in what way damage has resulted to him from the unlawful acts of the de- fendant. A mere general claim, based upon | is insufficient. The fact that 6 possible injury has resulted affords ground for damages | The court cannot assume to what extent the plaintiffs in this case have been injured by loss | of custom by reason of the defendants carrying on business in Rockville and Manchester in the ! absence of any proof whatever on the subject For this reason shall in this case give nomina | damages only; which fix at the sum of twenty | five dollars
 l Let decree be entered, perpetually enjoining l the defendant, his agents and servants, from using said trade-name sign and mark or any imitation thereof, within the limits of the city o | judgment of twenty five dollars damages ant l costs. J. M. HALL, Judge,