1. TiIADE-NamKS — INFKTNGKMENT—INTENT.

It is not essential to ¡lie right of a complainant to an injunction against the infringement of a trade-name that absolute fraud or willful intent to infringe be shown, but it will be presumed that the defendant intended the natural consequences of its acts; and if it puts its goods on the market under a name so nearly like complainant’s as to enable dealers to palm (hem off on customers as complainant’s, and at a price which makes it an object to do so. it may be hold responsible for the consequent injury to complainant’s business.

3. Same — Use; op Different Labels ok Packages.

It is not a defense to a suit to enjoin infringement of a trade-name by the adoption of a ñame so similar as to deceive purchasers, who are acquainted with complainant’s article only by name and through complainant’s advertisements, that defendant uses distinctive labels or forms of package.

3. Same.

A trade-name differs from a trade-mark in that it appeals to the ear more Ilian to the eye, and lienee the character of the label or package used by an imitator is of no great force in determining the question of infringement.

4. Same — Stmilaritv op Names — “Gold Dust” and “Gold Dkop.”

The name, “Gold Drop.” used by defendant to designate a washing powder, is sufficiently similar ir sound to the name “Gold Dust,” previously adopted by complainant for a, similar article, and by which name its product had been for several years extensively advertised, to deceive ordinary .purchasers not, familiar with the style of label or package used by complainant, and its use constitutes an infringement, although defendant uses'a different stylo of label and package, especially where'defendant sells i its product, which retails at the same price, at a lower pírico to dealers, and thus makes It an object for them to palm it off on purchasers asking for complainant’s whenever possible, which it is shown they in fact have done.