Hainque v. Cyclops Iron Works
Before: Garoutte
Synopsis
Trade-Name — Exclusive User — Good-Will — Fraud — Injunction. —After plaintiffs and their predecessors have for many years conducted a machine business under the name of “Cyclops Machine Works,” they have, by exclusive user, acquired a right to use the word “Cyclops” as a trade-name, which equity will protect; and the plaintiffs may maintain an injunction to prevent the use of that word by a corporation which has begun a business of the same general character in the immediate neighborhood of plaintiffs’ business, under the name of “Cyclops Iron Works,” for the purpose of misleading plaintiffs’ customers, and defrauding plaintiffs by appropriating the good-will of their business.
Id.— Infringement by Corporation—Corporate Name.—Where an individual would not be allowed to use the trade-name under the same circumstances, a corporation may not take it as part of its corporate name, and thus, by indirection, accomplish ends otherwise forbidden by law.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)