22 FEDERAL Rnroaran.
Saxlehner himself would not be permitted to do. The interposition
of a court of equity is frequently invoked and always successfully to
restrain unlawful competition in trade. All practices between rivals
in business which tend to engender unfair competition are odious
and will be suppressed by injunction. Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84;
Harper v. Pearson, 3 Law T. (N. S.) 547; Stevens v. Paine, 18 Law
T. (N. S.) 600; Glenny v. Smith, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 964; Mick v. Petter,
41 Law J. Ch. 781; Burgess v. Burgess, 3 De Gex, M. & G. 896;
Glen it H. Manzfg Oo. v. Hall, 61 N. Y. 226; Goodyear Rubber C0.
v. Gooalyear’s Manafg Oo., 21 Fed. Rep. 276; Genin v. Chadsey, 2
Brewst. 330; Aeery v. Meikle, 17 West. Jur. 292; Bell v. Locke, 8
Paige, 75. But the adjudications which illustrate the principle rest
upon the ground that a merchant or trader is entitled to protection
only against dishonest or perfidious rivalry in his business. He will
be protected against the fraudulent or deceitful simulations by a com- _
petitor of tokens which tend to confuse the identity or business of
the one with the other, and against the false representation of facts
which tend to mislead the public and divert custom from the one to
the other. Anything short of this, however, is lawful competition.
Accordingly the courts will not attempt to prevent the sending of
circulars or advertisements by one to the customers of a competitor
in business although designed to alienate patronage, if they contain
no deceitful or misleading statements.
The law does not deal with motives which are not accompanied by
a wrongful overt act. If the defendant is legally justified in buying
where he can and selling as he chooses, it is not material whether he
is actuated by a desire to annoy the complainant or to promote his
own pecuniary interests.
The complainant is without remedy and the motion for an injunc-
tion must be denied.
Earns and others v. Lmzsmnand others.
(6'lroult Oourt, S. D. New York. April 8, 1886.)
'I‘n.u>11: NAME—CHATTEBBOX—INFRINGEMENT.
The use of the word " Chatterbox, " in connection with the same method of
selection and illustration of stories, form of binding, and vignette, by de-
fendants, held, an infringement of complainants' right in the name.
In Equity. _ ·
John L. S. Roberts, for orators.
Charles E. Rushmore, for defendants.
Wnmannn, J. This case is similar to Estes v. Williams, 21 Fed.
Rep- 189, in respect to the right of the orators to the exclusive use