Jaynes

In this action the plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of a business conducted under the names Active Transfer Company and Active Parcel Delivery, sought to enjoin the defendants from using in connection with a business conducted by some of them the names Action Transfer Company and Action Parcel Delivery. A decree went for the plaintiff and the defendants appeal.

In great part, appellants’ presentation of their appeal is like that with which we had to deal in Alves v. Alves, 54 Cal. App. 563 [ 202 Pac. 157 ]. There is here a discussion of several questions of fact without mention of a claim that any finding of the trial court is not sustained by the evidence. Several questions of law are presented without our attention being called to alleged errors of the trial court to which the discussions may be applied. Appellants’ presentation is different, however, from the effort of appellants in Alves v. Alves in that the brief here is not altogether pointless.

[1] There is a sufficient presentation of the question whether the words “Active” and- “Action,” as used by the parties respectively in connection with the other words above set forth, are so similar that the public will be…