It is generally said that every man has an inherent, natural right to the free em ployment of his own name in his business ; Garrett v. T. H. Garrett & Co., 78 Fed. 472, 24 C. C. A. 173; Tarrant & Co. v. Hoff, 76 Fed. 959, 22 C. C. A. 644; Walter Baker & Co. v. Baker, 77 Fed. 181; 13 Beay. 209; Painter v. People, 147 Ill. 462, 35 N. E. 64 ; De Long v. Hook & Eye Co., 7 App. Div. 33, 39 N. Y. Supp. 903 ; Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Gato, 25 Fla. 886, 7 South. 23, 6 L. R. A. 823, 23 Am. St. Rep. 537. But the doctrine has its limitations. Where one uses his own name to identify the origin of his goods which are made at a particular place, no other person by the same name will be permitted to use his name on his own goods if he does it in such a way as to injure the trade and busi ness of another, or so as to represent his goods as the goods of another ; Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Gato, 25 Fla. 886, 7 South. 23, 6 L. R. •A. 823, 23 Am. St. Rep. 537; Gilman v. Hun newell, 122 Mass. 139. And one who uses his name in competition with an established busi ness carried on by another of the same name, must avoid putting up his goods in such a way as to resemble the goods of the other ; Walter Baker & Co. v. Sanders, 80 Fed. 889, 26 C. C. A. 220. And one is not entitled to use his name as part of the name of a corporation in order to compete with another of the same name ; Rogers Co. v. Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. 1017, 17 C. C. A. 576; Garrett v. T. H. Garrett & Co., 78 Fed. 473, 24 C. C. A. 173.
One who uses his name will be protected against the use of that name. even by a per son bearing it, in such form as to constitute a false representation of the origin of the goods ; Landreth v. Landreth, 22 Fed. 41. One cannot use his own name to deceive the public ; Pillsbury v: Flour Mills Co., 64 Fed. 841, 12 C. C. A. 432 ; 1 Ch. App. 192. One may trade honestly in his own name, but he must be careful not to trade under his own name in such a manner as to take away that which lawfully belongs to another ; he must be careful not to deceive; 4 R. P. C. 215. This right applies only to the party's, own line of business ; Nims, Unfair Comp. 23 ; thus Simplex on automobiles is not infringed by Simplex on fire extinguishers; Simplex Automobile Co. v. Kahnweiler, 162 App. Div. 480, 147 N. Y. Supp. 617.
A trader cannot be prevented from trading In his own name, if he uses it in good faith, even though it be similar to that of another trader who is well established ; [1907] App. Cas. 430. A name may acquire a secondary meaning, but this does not give the party an exclusive right to it, but others would be enjoined from using it so as to pass off their goods as those of the person whose name is in question ; [1906] 23 R. P. C. 348.
A personal name (an ordinary family sur name such as Remington) cannot be exclu sively appropriated against any one having a right to use it, and its registration as such canna in itself give it validity. Every one
has the right to use his name fairly and honestly, whether in a firm or corporation. It is not the use, but dishonesty in the use, that is condemned. One corporation cannot exclude another from using in its Corporate title a name to which others have a common right. The essence of the wrong in unfair competition consists in the sale of the goods of one as that of another, and if defendant is not trying to palm off its goods as those of another, the action fails ; Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, S. & B., 198 U. S. 118, 25 Sup. Ct. 609, 49 L. Ed. 972.
Where Arthur A. Waterman left the em ploy of the complainant, L. E. Waterman Company, which had built up a business in fountain pens under the name "Waterman's Ideal," and entered into a partnership under the name of A. A. Waterman & Company to compete with the complainant, which part nership afterwards transferred its business and good will and right to use such name to defendant, and it was clearly shown that confusion was created thereby, the defendant was enjoined from using the name Waterman at all unless it substituted for its firm name on its pens the name "Arthur A. Waterman & Company" and followed it with the words "Not connected with L. E. Waterman & Com pany"; Waterman Co. v. Pen Co., 197 Fed. 534, 117 C. C. A. 30.
In Chickering & Sons v. Chickering, 198 Fed. 958, where Chickering & Sons (piano makers) had obtained an injunction, it was held that the use of the words "Chickering Bros., Chicago," on the fall-board of the de fendant's piano, without other means of ad vising the purchaser that the piano was not of the original Chickering & Sons, exhibited adjacent thereto and as prominently as the name "Chickering Bros., Chicago," was un lawful and that the use in that connection of the words "The only Chickering making pianos" was not sufficient.
Where two grandsons of the original piano maker, "William Knabe," transferred their interests in the corporation manufacturing it and started a new piano company, it was held that they were entitled to make a piano having all the qualities of the first manufac turer and so to advertise, but must exercise care to prevent the public from believing that their article was that of the first manufactur er, or that they were his successors ; Stix, B. & F. D. G. Co. v. Piano Co., 211 Fed. 271. When one as a stockholder and officer of a corporation joined in a sale by it of his own name, he cannot use any mark, etc., indicat ing that he is the successor to the original corporation, or that his goods are its product or that of his successor, nor can he interfere with the good will so sold ; Donnell v. Safe Co., 208 U. S. 267, 28 Sup. Ct. 288, 52 L. Ed. 481. A retiring partner is not, in the absence of an agreement, precluded from using his surname in business because it was part of the partnership trade-mark ; White v. Trow bridge, 216 Pa. 11, 64 Atl. 862.