The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-08-04

the purpose of denoting his goods, unless
he first establishes that in the market his
goods have come to be known by that
name. L is not a question, as Ii has been
sometimes suggested, of the right of the
law to restrain q man from using his
own name.
1.-The right and duty OF the Court always is
to restrain a man from using a name that
has come to be recognized as the name of a
particular traders goods for his. the de-
PENDANTS, goods so as to suggest that the
defendants goods are the plaintiffs goods
and to pass them off as such" That was
an exposition Of the law dealing with the
very point now raised, and i, showed that,
though in such case It was more nee
essary than in any other for the plaintiff
to establish clearly the fact that the name
in question had come in the market to de-
note the plaintiffs goods. yet the principle
was the same as in other cases The plain
tiff must establish that the name in ques-
ton had acquired a secondary" meaning
as denoting his goods There was no doubt
as TO the law which was to be applied.
Inc question was whether the names Val
entine's Meat Juice valentines Elk
tract or Valentine" alone had come to
be used in the market as distinguishing the
plaintiffs preparation only. There could be
no doubt that they had. The evidence was
overwhelming. The plaintiffs had estab-
lished that their goods had become known
in the market by these names, and there
was no reason why these names should not
be protected as much as any fancy name
Ills Lordship did not wish to Judge any
man harShty. but ne could not treat the
defendants action in the matter as thor
ouSh.y straightforward and honest He
came 70 the conclusion that the defendant,
G. X Valentine, was perfectly aware that
the names Valentines Meat juice and
valentines Extract" were names Of great
reputation in the market and that he adopt
ed the name in question for the purpose of
getting the benefit of the reputation so far
as he could. The evidence showed that a
number of persons had bona fide thought
that the article put on the market by the
defendants was Valentines meat juice con-
tanned IN capsules. The Court had only to
consider what would be the effect of the
notices put out by the defendants and, in
His Lordshtp's opinion the only natural
CONCLUSION was that which was drawn by
those persons who wrote to the defendants
asking for an explanation. 1t was said that
the PLAINTIFFS and the defendants We're ap-
pealins to different markets. His Lordship
ore" me conclusion that the defendants
were representing and intending 10 repre-
sent 10 the public that their article was
Valentines extract OF meat which had
new Qualities, and that they We're not mere
iy claiming the invention Of a capsule. 1t
was not suggested that c. r. Valentine
had experimental on extract Of meat or
had produced extract of meat or had done
anything but obtain the best extract of
meat which he could procure. In His
Lordships opinion the term Valentine Tx
tract could not be used in connection with
meat juice without representing the goods
to be those of the plaintiffs The Plaintiffs
were entitled 10 the relief which they
asked, and. under the circumstances, His
Lordship thought that the injunction should
extend to the use of the word "Valen-
tine
Lord Justice Rigby and Lord Justice
Collins delivered judgment to the same
effect.
Mr.. Upjohn asked that The operation of
the induction might be suspended pending
an appeal to the House of Lords.
{. Tbs Court refused to do this