JUDGMENT

FISHER J

The facts are really not in dispute, and the point is a short one, and seems to me to be free from doubt; but there is one feature of the case which, I think, calls for some notice.

The matter principally involved is the proper function and value of a trade mark, and it has been laid down that its office is to give an indication to the eye of a possible purchaser as to the manufacture or quality of the goods; of the trade source from which they come, or the trade hands through which they pass on their way to the market; and notice to the buyer that what is presented to him is what he has known before under the same name as coming from a source he is acquainted with, or what he has heard of as coming from such a source. Re Powell's Trade Mark [1893] 2 Ch., at p. 404, per Bowen LJ. Further, it indicates some connection between the goods and a particular trader but if it identifies goods as of a particular trader manufacture, it does not matter that the buyer does not know the trader's name. The nature of the connection is immaterial, but it should be constant and if a maker sells goods made by others under a trade mark identified with his own, his conduct, it has