The law of motion pictures (1918)

440 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES Section 123. — Infringement of titles — Titles held to infringe. Defendants, who had obtained the services of one Heney to revise an old work, and had entitled it, Heney’s New and Revised Edition of Jousse’s Royal Standard Pianoforte Tutor and had printed the word “Heney” in large letters, both on the title page and cover, were held to infringe the plaintiff’s work Heney' s Royal Modern Tutor for the Pianoforte .34 So, too, were the titles Canadian Bookseller and Literary Journal and Canada Bookseller and Stationer held to infringe.35 The plaintiffs and one Beatty had carried on the business of publishing and selling copybooks under the title of Beatty's Head Line Copy-Book. Subsequently Beatty withdrew from the firm, received twenty thousand dollars for his interest therein, and registered his name in connection with copybooks. He then contracted with the defendant to prepare copybooks, and these were to be sold under the title Beatty’s New and Improved HeadLine Copy Books. It was held that he could not do so.36 34 Metzler v. Wood (Eng.) (1876) , 8 Ch. D. 606. “ But when the defendant came to print the cover, fair trading required that the exterior of the work should bear the name of Jousse as the prominent word, and that the name of Henrey as editor should be made subordinate. The question is whether the cover of the book is not calculated to deceive. The cases rest in a simple proposition enunciated by Lord Longdale in Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84, which is ‘that no man has a right to sell his own goods as the goods of another.’ That is the principle on which I decide this case.” 35 Rose v. McLean (Can.) (1896), 24 Ont. App. 240. 36 Canada Publ. Co. v. Beatty