Similar statutes are in force in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts," Missouri, New York, and Vermont." Section 4. Unauthorized use of names of corporations or individuals. In two States statutes are found which make it a criminal offense for any corporation to use a name which is the same as or similar to that used by any other corporation. The Georgia penal code provides that Any firm, person, corporation, or association who shall use the name or seal of any other person, firm, corporation or association, in or about the sale of goods or otherwise, not being authorized to use the same, knowing that such use is unauthorized, with intent to deceive the public in the sale of goods, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.' The Maryland law provides It shall be unlawful for any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association or joint stock company with intent to defraud to trade, do or transact any business in the State of Maryland under any name, trade name or title, which is the same as, or similar to, that used by any other individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association or joint stock company, previously using, trading or doing business under such name, trade name or title in the State of Maryland, or to imitate such name, trade name or title, Provided that this Act shall not apply to individuals possessing similar names. 8 INDIVIDUAL NAMES.-In addition to the Georgia and Maryland statutes above quoted there is a Massachusetts law which prohibits one person from assuming the name of any other person without the latter's consent, and authorizes the courts to restrain such use of individual names. The act is in part as follows: A person who carries on business in this commonwealth shall not assume or continue to use in his business the name of a person formerly connected with him in partnership or the name of any other person, either alone or in connection with his own or with any other name or designation, without the consent in writing of such person or his legal representatives." Section 5. Counterfeiting or fraudulent use of labels, marks, and brands. COUNTERFEITING.-Statutes prohibiting the counterfeiting or imitating of labels, marks, and brands are in force in 21 States and in the District of Columbia.10 Most of these statutes appear to have been passed primarily for the protection of trade-marks, and the 1 Comp. Laws, 1914, sec. 2682h. 2 Laws of 1905, p. 130. 3 Revised Laws, 1902, ch. 126, sec. 8. 4 Rev. Stats., 1909, sec. 3039. 5 Cons. Laws, ch. 23, sec. 15. Pub. Stats., 1906, sec. 774. 7 Park's Penal Code (1914), sec. 257. * Maryland Laws, 1910, ch. 595. Rev. Laws (1902), ch. 72, sec. 5. 1o Statutes relating to union labels have been omitted. extent of their application to nontechnical marks, labels, etc., appears to be somewhat doubtful. For this reason nothing more than the references to them are given.1 The same comment applies to statutes affording similar protection to labels, marks, and brands which have been registered with the various State authorities. Such statutes are to be found in 14 States and in Porto Rico.2 FRAUDULENT USE OF GENUINE LABELS, MARKS, AND BRANDS.-This is prohibited in general terms by the following Kentucky statute: SEC. 1. That no dealer or merchant shall make or apply or cause to be made or applied to any parcel or package any printed, written, stamped, engraved or other kind or character of label bearing the brand or name or both such brand and name of any manufacturer without the written authority of said manufacturer. SEC. 2. Any person, firm or corporation violating the provisions of this act shall be fined in any sum not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars for each offense. In addition, there are statutes in 38 States, Porto Rico and the District of Columbia which prohibit the refilling and reselling of labeled, marked, or branded containers by persons other than those who originally filled and sold them. Whether the protection of these statutes is limited to containers bearing technical trade-marks is also doubtful, and hence their citations only are given.1 1 Arizona Penal Code (1913), secs. 350-353; District of Columbia Code, sec. 879; Georgia Penal Code (1911), secs. 254, 255; Idaho Rev. Codes, secs. 6862-6865; Illinois J. & A. Ann. Stats. (1913), secs. 3696, 3697; Iowa Code (1897), sec. 5047; Maine Rev. Stats. (1903), ch. 40, sec. 26; Massachusetts Rev. Stats. (1902), ch. 72, secs. 2, 3, 6; Michigan, Howell's Stats. (1913), secs. 14713-14716; Minnesota Gen. Stats. (1913), secs. 8852-8857; Mississippi Code (1906), secs. 1380-1382; Missouri Rev. Stats. (1909), secs. 11789-11796; Nebraska Rev. Stats. (1913), sees. 8701, 8705; Nevada Rev. Laws (1912), secs. 6689-6690; New Jersey Comp. Stats. (1910), p. 1802, sec. 196; New York Penal Law, secs. 2350-2354; North Dakota Comp. Laws (1913), secs. 9711-9718; Ohio Gen. Code (1910), secs. 13089, 13091; Oregon, Bellinger and Cotton's Code, sec. 1840; South Dakota Penal Code, secs. 423-427; Wisconsin Stats. (1913), sec. 4463; Wyoming Comp. Stats. (1910), sec. 3060. California Penal Code (Kerr), secs. 350-353; Colorado, Mills' Ann. Stats. (1912), secs. 7557-7561; Connecticut Gen. Stats. (1902), secs. 4904-4906; Indiana, Burns' Ann. Stats. (1914), secs. 10441-10452; Massachusetts Rev. Stats. (1902), ch. 72, secs. 7-14; Montana Rev. Codes (1907), secs. 8447-8450; Nevada Rev. Laws (1912), secs. 6691€394; New Jersey Comp. Stats. (1910), pp. 5643-5648; New Mexico Stats. (1915), sec. 5559; North Carolina. Pell's Rev. of 1908, secs. 3019-3022; Oregon Laws (1911), ch. 97; Pennsylvania, P. & L. Digest, cols. 7315-7318; Porto Rico Rev. Stats. (1911), secs. 5759, 5760; Utah Comp. Laws (1907), secs. 4482-4485; Vermont Pub. Stats. (1906), secs. 4962-1967, as amended by Pub. Acts, 1908, No. 121. 3 Kentucky, Acts 1912, ch. 51, p. 205. 4 Alabama Code (1907), secs. 7318-7321; Arizona Penal Code (1913), sec. 354; Arkansas, Kirby's Digest (1904), secs. 7969-7973; California Penal Code (Kerr), secs. 3541-3541, Laws of 1911, ch. 230; Colorado, Mills' Ann. Stats. (1912), secs. 7570-7576, inc.; Connecticut Pub. Acts (1911), ch. 208; District of Columbia Code, sec. 878; Florida Comp. Laws (1914), secs. 3345, 3346; Indiana, Burns' Ann. Stats. (1914), sec. 10439; Idaho Laws (1911), ch. 212; Iowa Code Supp. (1907), sec. 5052; Kansas Stats. (1909), secs. 9670-9674; Maine Rev. Stats. (1903), ch. 40, secs. 37-39; Maryland Code, art. 27, secs. 331-335; Massachusetts Rev. Stats. (1902), ch. 72, secs. 15-18; Michigan, Howell's Stats. (1913), secs. 4341-4343; Minnesota Gen. Stats. (1913), secs. 6951, 6952; Missouri Rev. Stats. (1909), sec. 4831; Montana Rev. Stats. (1907), sec. 8451; Nebraska Rev. Stats. (1913), secs. 8869-8895; New Hampshire Laws (1903), ch. 120; New Jersey Comp. Section 6. Passing off the goods of one person or corporation as those of another. Apparently the only State statute which applies comprehensively to the whole subject of passing off the goods or establishment of one person or corporation as those of another is found in New York. This enactment is in part as follows: Shall sell or shall expose for sale any goods in bulk, to which no label or trade-mark shall be attached, and shall by representation, name or mark written or printed thereon, represent that such goods are the production or manufacture of a person who is not the manufacturer; or, Shall knowingly sell, offer or expose for sale any article of merchandise, and shall orally or by representation, name or mark written or printed thereon or attached thereto used in connection therewith, or by advertisement, or otherwise, in any manner whatsoever make any false representation as to the person bywhom such article of merchandise or the material thereof was made, or was in whole or in part produced, manufactured, finished, processed, treated, marketed, packed, bottled or boxed, or falsely represents that such article of merchandise or the material or any part thereof has or may properly have any trade-mark attached to it or used in connection with it, or is or may properly be indicated or identified by any trade-mark, Twelve States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and the United States, have laws prohibiting the enticing away of employees, that of the United States being applicable only to employees in arsenals or armories. With the exception of the Tennessee statute, which forbids the enticement of any person under contract or in the employ of another, and of the Maine law, which prohibits employment agencies from inducing any employee to leave his employment, these laws are limited in their application to certain classes of employment. Considered in the aggregate, they apply to the following employees: Stats. (1910), pp. 293-299; New Mexico Stats. (1915), sec. 5558; New York Penal Law, secs. 2355-2357, general business law, secs. 360–367; Louisiana Acts (1896), No. 120, as amended by Acts 1904, No. 74; North Carolina, Revisal of 1908 (Pell's), secs, 3027a3027d; North Dakota Comp. Laws (1913), secs. 9719-9721; Ohio Gen. Code (1910), sec. 13111; Oklahoma Comp. Laws, secs. 8207-8209; Pennsylvania, Pepper and Lewis's Dig., 2d ed., pp. 7319-7324; Porto Rico Rev. Stats. (1911), secs. 5763-5765; Rhode Island Gen. Laws (1909), ch. 198; South Dakota Penal Code, secs. 428-430, Laws 1903, ch. 83, sec. 1; Texas, White's Penal Code, arts. 918a to 918e; Utah Comp. Stats. (1907), secs. 4475x, 4486; Vermont Pub. Stats. (1906), secs. 4968-1972; Virginia Code (1904), sec. 1906a; West Virginia Code (1913), secs. 3598-3600; Washington, Remington and Ballinger's Code (1910), secs. 9501-9503; Wisconsin Stats. (1913), secs, 1747a-1-1747dd. 1 New York Laws (1914), vol. 2, ch. 332. 2 Alabama Code (1907), sees. 6849, 6850; Arkansas Laws (1905), Act. No. 298; Florida Comp. Laws (1914), sec. 3232; Georgia Penal Code, sec. 123; Kentucky, Carroll's Stats. (1915), sec. 1349; Louisiana Acts (1906), No. 54; Maine Laws (1911), ch. 87, sec. 4; Mississippi Code (1906), sec. 1146; New Jersey Comp. Stats. (1910), p. 2205; North Carolina, Pell's Rev. of 1908, secs. 3365, 3367; South Carolina Crim. Code (1912), sec. 504, as amended by Acts 1913, No. 28; Tennessee Acts (1907), ch. 154; U. S. Stats. L., vol. 34, p. 308 (D. C.); Hawaii Rev. Laws (1915), sec. 4201; U. S. Stats. L., vol. 35, p. 2 Apprentices, servants, domestics, laborers, tenants, share croppers, and artificers. The laws of the District of Columbia, Maine, and New Jersey apply only to enticement by employment agencies. A violation of these statutes is punishable criminally in all jurisdictions save one, where a civil liability alone is prescribed, while in five jurisdictions, there is imposed both a criminal and a civil liability, the measure of damages under the latter usually being the losses incurred by reason of the enticement. In Alabama a sum in no case less than double the damages may be recovered in a civil action, onehalf of which goes to the injured employer and the other half to the county in which the offense occurs; and in Louisiana the injured employer is allowed double the amount of any debt owed him by the enticed employee. 10 Also in several States, early statutes enacted to prevent the enticement of lawfully bound apprentices are still in force. The violation of these statutes was usually punished by either fine or imprisonment, or both. Section 8. Use of trading stamps. GENERAL STATEMENT. The trading stamp has been very generally employed by merchants in recent years as a device to induce patrons to confine their trade to them and to attract new customers. The value of the stamps represents a small percentage of the purchase price of goods and they are usually given only to cash purchasers. The stamps are redeemable in goods, or sometimes in money or goods, either by the establishment giving them or by the company which sold the stamps to the dealer. Very generally the stamps are sold to merchants by companies organized for the purpose of engaging in this business, and are redeemed by the trading-stamp company after being issued by the merchant to his customers. Some merchants, however, have adopted the policy of issuing and redeeming their own stamps. It is common, also, for manufacturers to issue coupons with their products redeemable by the consumer in " premiums." 1 Alabama. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, and South Carolina, * District of Columbia and New Jersey. 4 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and United States. 5 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina. 7 United States. 8 Tennessee. " Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 10 Connecticut Gen Stats., sec. 1250; Florida Comp. Laws (1911), sec. 3231; Georgia Penal Code, sec. 121; Illinois, J. and A. Ann. Stats., sec. 455; Kentucky, Carroll's Stats (1915), sec. 2601; Missouri Stats. (1909). sec. 4817; Nevada Rev. Laws (1912), sec. 495; New Hampshire Pub. Stats. (1901), ch. 180, sec. 12; North Carolina, Pell's Rev. of 1908, sec. 193; and Ohio Gen. Code, sec. 8018. When the stamps are sold to merchants by trading-stamp companies the latter usually agree to distribute to the public books containing the names of merchants giving the stamps and explaining the method of issuing and redeeming them, and in other ways to advertise the merchants. By agreement between the stamp company and merchants, the right to distribute the stamps is usually limited to one merchant within a specified area. There has been considerable legislation enacted in recent years for the purpose of abolishing the use of trading stamps. The advocates of legislation of this class urge that the use of the stamps tends to monopoly, fosters combinations, and restrains trade by restricting open competition; and that in so far as the business is conducted by stamp companies it is a mere intervention between the buyer and seller of a third party preying upon both. They further assert that it adds to the cost of living by imposing a useless tax on the community, leads to the sale of inferior goods, and encourages indiscriminate buying. The opponents of legislation prohibiting the use of stamps urge, however, that their use is merely a method or scheme of advertising and that they afford a ready means of giving a small discount to cash purchasers. They further characterize the efforts to prohibit their use as attempts to protect one class from the fair, free, and full competition of another class. Legislation affecting the use or distribution of trading stamps may be broadly divided into two classes, (1) That which is apparently designed to abolish their use entirely or to tax them out of existence, and (2) that which is intended to regulate the issuance and redemption of such stamps. LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE USE OF TRADING STAMPS.—Antitrading stamp legislation proper did not begin in the United States until 1898. Unsuccessful attempts, however, were previously made in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland to prevent gifts or premiums by merchants to their customers under existing statutes against (1) any offer with the sale of any article, or any article of food, of anything except what was stated to be the subject of the sale, (2) "lottery gifts by storekeepers and others," and (3) gift enterprises.* The New York act was held to invade constitutional rights under the guise of the police power, and was characterized by the Court of Appeals as belonging to a type of legislation intended to protect one class against the free, fair, and full competition of another class.5 1 Massachusetts Laws (1884), ch. 277. 2 New York Laws (1887), ch. 691; South Carolina Laws (1887), No. 397. 4 Maryland Laws (1886), ch. 480. 5 People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y., 389 (1888). |