Skinner  v.  Oaken  (1881),  10
Mo.  App.  45.  "We  think  the
answer  to  this  cjucstion  depends
upon  the  effect  which  the  use  of
the  name  in  each  particular
instance  is  shown  to  have  upon
the  minds  of  the  public.     If  it


leads  the  public  to  beUeve  the
particular  goods  are  in  fact  made
by  the  person  whose  name  is  thus
stamped  upon  them,  or  in  whose
name  they  are  advertised,  where-
as they  are  in  fact  made  by  an-
other person,  then  such  a  use  of
the  name  will  not  be  protected
by  the  courts,  for  to  do  so  would
be  to  protect  the  perpetration
of  a  fraud  upon  the  i)eople.  See
also:  Oakes  v.  Tonsinierre  (1883),
49  Fed.   (C.  C.)  447.
^Burrow  v.  Marceau  (1908),
124  A.  D.  (N.  Y.)  665;  109  N.  Y.
Supp.  105.  "Each  case  must
depend  upon  its  own  facts,  but
where  it  ♦is  clearly  established
that  an  attempt  is  being  made
l)y  one  person  to  got  the  business
of  another  by  any  means  that  in-
volves fraud  or  deceit,  a  court
of  ('(juity  will  protect  the  honest
trader  and  ri'strain  adishonost  one
from  carrying  out  his  s(;heme."


LIMITATIONS   ON    USE — PRICE    FIXING  481

Section  133. — Limitations  on  use — price  fixing.
