The law of trade-marks was originally founded upon the fraud of him who used them falsely, and upon that fraud as bf * practised on the buyer. It was a second and a distinct step which extended this law to the fraud practised on the seller. By this step it protected him against the injury sustained by him from the use by another of his trade-mark, and this is the principle of the recent statutory provision. It protects him in the enjoyment of a right which, even at common law, came very near to being a right of property. No one has ever doubted that the exclusive right secured by a patent or copyright is regarded in law as a property. And now the same statute which regulates patents and copyrights includes trade-marks, and makes the exclusive right to use a trade-mark analogous at least to that secured by patent or copyright, and a right of property, or something very like that right.

Although the statute has now come in aid of the common law in the matter of trade-marks, the earlier adjudication on the nature of the right, or the property, has not lost its interest nor its usefulness. And we give the leading cases on this subject in our notes. (gg)

(gg) This question was fully discussed, and finally settled in the several cases of Taylor v. Carpenter, in the Circuit Court of the United States, and in the Court of Chancery in New York. The plaintiffs, citizens of England, were manufacturers of thread, which was largely exported to the United States and had there gained a valuable reputation. The defendant, a citizen of Massachusetts, also a manufacturer of thread, had been in the habit of placing upon his own thread labels marked with the plaintiff's name, and in every respect closely imitating those used by the plaintiff upon his own goods. One of the principal grounds of defence relied on was that the plaintiffs, being; aliens, had no right to a trade-mark in this country which an American court would protect. But Chancellor Walworth said: " The fact that the complainants are subjects of another government, and the defendant is a citizen of the United States, as stated in the answer, cannot alter the rights of the parties or deprive the complainants of the favorable interposition of the court, if those rights have been violated by the defendant. So far as the subject-matter of the suit is concerned, there is no difference between citizens and aliens." 11 Paige, 292. On appeal to the court for the correction of errors, the decree was affirmed. 2 Sandf. Ch. 511. In another suit between the same parties in the United States Circuit Court in Massachusetts, Story, J., said : "It is suggested that the plaintiffs are aliens. Be it so. But in the courts of the United States, under the Constitution and laws, they are entitled to the same protection of their rights as citizens. There is no difference between the case of a citizen and that of an alien friend when his rights are openly violated." 3 Story C. C. Sep. 459. Finally, in an action on the case for bg