New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-06-07

the labels. and in many cases called for the particular
brand they wanted by the Distinguishing feature OF the
label.
When customer called for Carriers the grocer with
our any misrepresentation and without explanation
Wa accustomed to give out Richard H. Carriers pack
age
Robert Garter & Co. brought action to restrain the
grocer from selling the rival package simply Carters
But +, was decided that in this where there was
demand for both brands and where most OF the Gus
toner, apparently distinguished between the labels ana
brands ii the TWO houses, there obligation upon
th. grocer To- Tell the customer that there were two
Carter brands and t. ask which Wa- wanted.
\XIIIAT, then are q mans right, IN the Use oil MS
w own name, Briefly. these:
Every man has IN inhcrcn, right % do business IN his
own name and to advertise his own name; provided
l. i, done in an honest manner and without mlSrcprc
-cntation Il "a man Uses hi, own name honestly, II Is
,nacria that hc in'ur, another person OF the same
name who Is engaged IN the same or similar nuSiic'
But, though q man may Use hi- own name, he must
AWAY. refrain from doing any act adopting any
device or scheme that will tend 20 confuse his business
orprolu.t with that Of another dealer OF the same name
The confusion resulting from similarity OF labels pack
ages dress or advertising is ayodabc, and should not
he permitted
Sometime however. man must 60 further than TO
rative steps to distinguish his goods from those Of an
earlier manufacturer Of the same name The Carter
cases are an instance Of this. The name Carter IN tins
particular business has acquired secondary meaning
tina, is It mean, the output 81 one particular Carter
Other men Of the same name have the right to 60 into
the same business, and they have the right to use the
name Garter in connection with their business; but be-
cause Of the secondary meaning that ha, attached to
th, name Carter in that particular trade, these other
men mus, distinguish their goods from those OF the
original Carter.
ALTHOUGH man ina, q natural right to Use his own
name in hi, business nevertheless his conduct may
be such tina, ne loses that right in whole or in part Il
his name property that he may protect he may like
wise transfer or assign IT, and ne may even agree that
ne personally will not u-c his name in business.
\boi, thirtv-four wears ago "a glue was invented by
a man whose name not Hiram Green but tins
name will do Just well a. the real one Green's fish
Glue wa advertised extensively and became well known
and had large sale In 1882 Green transferred his
business to the Marvin Cement Company, corpora
ton. Green was connected with this corporation until
about 1856 and then ne Withdrew and engaged in the
manufacture and sale Of liquid glue in the same city in
Massachusetts, under the busnc>, name Of Green Fish
Glue & Cement Company. He advertised his prod
net a, "Grccns Improved Fish Glue, and stated that
he was the original inventor and manufacturer OF
Green, fish glue
The Marvin Cement Company attempted to enjoln
Green from using hi IN the glue business lhiS
drastic action the refused TO take But 1t IS sad
that Green had made hi, a trademark and cStab-
li-hcd busnc-, under that name. When he sold the
bu,nc,, some limited extent az least he parted with
the right to Ms own name He could not thereafter
engage in the buinc, under his name in such
a - lead the publ. TO believe that the prod
not 81 hi, bu-nc,> the product OF the original
cuisines he established.
Green allowed To- describe hi, product rs fish glue
state that me- the manufacturer thereof, and to
state the place Of manufacture; but he was cnJoncd
from calling it Greens improved fish glue or from
4.