Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-16
COURT ] RI. DECISIONS ]. !: [ ]
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
: tExclusiyely for yirElnian-P llot.)
ROBINSON v. STORM.
Supreme Court Of Tennessee.
June 10, 1899.

'~F~%A ~AsAS NoNA VI 4CltilSSSCC.
June 10, 1885,
THB PURCHASER OF THE Bust
NESS AND GOOD WILL OF A FIRM
ACQUIRES THE RIGHT TO A
TRADEMARK USED BY THE
FIRM.
WHILE A PERSON MAY USE HIS
OWN NANiE FOR BUSINESS PUR-
POSES, HE CANNOT DO so TO
COMMIT A FRAUD UPON PUR-
CHASERS, AND TO PALM OFF HIS
WARES AS THOSD OF ANOTHER.
This was suit in chancery by James
3. Robinson against George A. Storm
10 en5oin the latter from putting upon
the market in the way lie was doing
medicine which he advertised as
Storms Liver Regulator" 1t appears
that DR.. Mitchell. an eminent physician
of Memphis, in 1872, gave to the firm
or SteVer g. Robinson, druggists, a
formula for q medicine which they pre-
pared and sold. Among others who
bought 1t was one Captain Ad. Storm,
VINO was well and widely known. and
VINO was much benefited by the medi-
cine and recommended 1t to a great
many of his friends. Stevcr & Robin
-'SAAb "ith Shptdilt > COllSGIll, uu-
vertised the medicine as STORMS Liver
Regulator" and us such it became a
very popular medicine and was largely
sold.
After this Robinson bought out the
firm of Stever 6 Robinson and con-
tinued to sell the medicine. Captain
Storm died and his only child. the de-
PENDANT, George A. Storm. got a medi-
cine put up by n druggist and sold it
with label very similar to that of
Robinson, and with the words. STORMS
Liver Regulator" on It. The lower
court gave n decree for the plaintiff and
Storm appealed.
The court says:
In 1873 Robinson purchased Stevens
Interest In tho assets and good will OF
SteVer e. Robinson. Ry this purchase
lie acquired tho sole right to this for
mula, and by operation Of law. the
hrm S trademarks used In placing the
medicine made from thi formula on
the market. 1t Is immatcrial that there
Is lack Of an initiation Of the labels
ana cartoons of the complainant SO as
10 deceive an expert or even an ordi-
nary observer. AS has just been stated,
the evidence shows that, notwithstand-
ing the differences, yet the stimulation
is sufficient 10 deceive both cautious anu
tncautious buyers.
But 1t Is argued that defendant Is
entitled to use his own name in placing
his own medicine on the market, and
that. If complainant Is injured thereby,
he must bear the consequences Of hay
ing selected as part OF his trade
mark or trade-name name common TO
others. The law Is settled that no one
can acquire the right Of a trade mark,
either In his own name or In that of
another person, SO rs to exclude one Of
the same name from using it to identify
goods which he sees proper TO put on
the market. so long as in doing so the
latter perpetrates no fraud thereby, or
is guilty of no unfair practice.
Every one has the absolute right to
use his own name honestly in his own
business. even though he may thereby
incidentally interfere with and iniure
the business OF another having the same
name. But, although he may use his
name, he cannot resort to any artiflce
or do any act calculated to mislead the
public as to the identity of the bust
ness firm or establishment, or of the
article produced by them, and thus pro-
duce injury to the other beyond that
which results from the Similarity Of
name. Where the name is one which
has previously thereto come to indicate
the source OF manufacture of particular
devices. the use of such name by an
other unaccompnnied with any pre-
caution. In Itself amounts to an artiflce
calculated to produce the deception"
Upon the overwhelming weight OF
both English and American authority
the defendant, on the facts Of this re-
cord, was guilty Of nm infringement Of
the trademark of complainant, and OF
an Illegal improper and unfair COM
petition in business with complainant,
rs well as OF an attempted imposition
upon the public and the chancellor was
correct in so holding. Affirmed
-. cx11urr W ,r>,-z