This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1904 edition. Excerpt: ...sufficiently established. It would seem entirely feasible for the defendants to affix to the exterior of their lamps marks which would explicitly indicate the exact character of the goods, and which would not, as do the present marks of the defendants, depend upon trade knowledge for their signification. While I do not at present decide that the defendants are under any legal obligation to change their labels, yet, in view of the suggestion of parties and counsel of their readiness to make all reasonable efforts to avoid confusion of goods, it may not be inappropriate for a court to suggest the course which will tend to do this. Under all the circumstances, I do not think that the complainant's right is so clear as to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. In Browne on Trade-marks, sec. 465, it is said: "If the defendant show a belief that he has a just defense, and is not a wilful pirate, then the case should be one of evident mistake of law or fact, or both, in the defense which he sets up, which will justify the festinum remedium." That the defendants are not wilful pirates, and are unwillingly putting forth lamps with the complainant's label therein, seems clear. If they are in the wrong, it is merely for their failure to surrender their profits at the demand of one who stands strictly on its rights as an owner of property. There is much more in this case than in the ordinary trade-mark case. There is a question of the scope of the users for which a trade-mark may be applied, and the question how far a court of chancery will lend its aid to relieve a complainant who has voluntarily forced the situation from which he seeks relief, or suffer itself to become an instrument in mere business strategy. I...