SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 135

And this deed then concludes with a proviso in these words
" Provided always, and it is the true intent and meaning of these
presents, that it the said Thomas Clagett shall well and truly pay,
repay, and satisfy the said Chailes Salmon for all advances of

83 Md 252 One tradesman has no right to use the trade marks or names
previously adopted and used bv another so as to induce purchasers to be
lieve contiary to the fact that they are buying the aiticles to to which the
marks were originally apphed Ibid

No one can claim protection for the exclusi\e use of a trade mark of trade
name which would piactically give him a monopoly in the sale of any goods
other than those produced by himself Canal Co v Clark 13 Wallace 311
Nor can a generic name or a name merely descriptive of an article of trade
of its qualities ingredients oi chaiacteristics be employed as a trademark,
and the exclusive use of it be protected Ibid I etters or figuies affixed to
merchandise by a manufacturer for the purpose of denoting its quality
only cannot be appropriated by him to his exclusive use as a trade mark
Manufac Co v Timuet, 101 U S 51

And so a publisher or author has either in the title of his work or in the
application of his name to it or in the particular marks which designate it,
a species of propeity similar to that which a trader has in his trade mark
and may like a trader claim the protection of equity against such a use or
imitation of the name marks or designation as is likely in the opinion of
the Court to be a cause of damage to him in respect of that propeitv This
doctrine has been held applicable to such periodical publications as newspapers
magazines and almanacs To entitle a complainant to relief he must clearly
show a property right in himself and a fraudulent or colorable imitation by
the defendant Robeitson v. Herry 50 Md 591 In Walter v Emott, 33 L
T Rep (N S ) 437 an application by the proprietor of the Evening Mail to
restrain the publication of a paper called the Morning Mail was refused

Equitv will not interfere in cases of this kind if there is any lack of truth
in the plaintiff s case or if the trade mark or label sought to be protected
contains a mist epresentation Siegert v Abbott 61 Md 376 Nor will equity
interfere where the testimony in regard to the light of owneiship of the
trade mark is conflicting and contradictory so that it is difficult to determine
on which side the weight of evidence preponderates Witthaus v. Mattfelt,
44 Md 304 Where a trade mark is used to designate the place and person
by whom the goods are made, the right thereto passes to the purchaser of
the business and manufactory at which the goods are made Ibid But the
mere «ale of a trade mark apart from the article to which it is affixed confers
no right of ownership because no one can claim the right to sell his goods
as goods manufactured by another To permit this to be done would be a
fraud upon the public Ibid

The Acts of Congress providing for the registration and protection of
trade marks were declared to be unconstitutional in the Trade Mark Cases,
100 U S 82

XIV INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS Equity hasjurisdiction to
enjoin the illegal proceedings of public functionaries. Bait v Potter 18
Md 285 Holland s Caw 11 Md 186 See supra, Municipal Corporations
Discretionary power of Commissioners to lay out a netv road or street will
not be restrained Worthington v Bicknell 1 Bland 186, note Pascault v
Com'rs Ibid 584, note Injunction against officers of Registration, refused