case blanchard versus hill December last seal after Michaelmas term see Farina  v Silverlock key I doubt hall v barrow l I Ch the plaintiff move for a  injunction to restrain the defendant from use the mogul stamp on his card  suggest the sole right to be in the plaintiff have appropriate the stamp to  himself conformable to the charter grant to the card maker company by king  Charles the first Lord Hardwicke deny the injunction and say he know no  instance of restrain one trader from make use of the same mark with another a  motion be make on behalf of the plaintiff for a injunction to restrain the  defendant from make use of the great mogul as a stamp upon his card to the  prejudice of the plaintiff upon a suggestion that the plaintiff have the sole  right to this atkins er p stamp have appropriate it to himself conformable to  the charter grant to the cardmakers company by king Charles the first note the  plaintiff allege that he have invent the mark and it be approve and allow of  to he by the master warden and assistant of the company of maker of play card  of the city of London Reg lib a fol atkins Lord chancellor I think the  intention of the charter be illegal though indeed all the clause that  establish the corporation and give they power to make bylaws be legal in the  first place the motion be to restrain the defendant from make card with the  same mark which the plaintiff have appropriate to himself and in this respect  there be no foundation for this court to grant such a injunction every  particular trader have some particular mark or stamp but I do not know any  instance of grant a injunction here to restrain one trader from use the same  mark with another and I think it will be of mischievous consequence to do it  Mr attorney general have mention a case where a action at law be bring by a  clothworker against another of the same trade for use the same mark and a  judgement be give that the action will lie Poph the case here allude to seem  to be that mention by Doderidge in southern v how Poph but it be not the  single act of make use of the mark that be sufficient to maintain the action  but do it with a fraudulent design to put off bad clothes by this mean or to  draw away customer from the other clothier and there be no difference between  a tradesman put up the same sign and make use of the same mark with another oh  f the same trade in the case of monopoly the rule the court have govern itself  by be whether there be any act of parliament under which this restriction be  find but the court will never establish a right of this kind claim under a  charter only from the crown unless there have be a action to try the right at  law the court will not do it even in the case of the sole print of bible and  commonprayerbook till a trial be first have anon vern hill v university of  Oxford vern Whitchurch v hide ante and reference if the injunction be to be  obtain it must be upon the charter of the crown but then it must be consider  upon the intention of the charter what be the end of direct the mark there  atkins I take this to be one of those monopoly which be so frequent in king  James the first be time and continue through all his reign but do not last  long in his successor I observe too the application for this very charter be  in king James the first be time though not complete till the beginning of king  Charles the first be reign in the first place the design of grant this charter  be to raise a sum of money for the crown here be a clause likewise for  prohibit the importation of card from foreign part can such a clause be  support now impossible it be entire illegal there be another clause that  confine the make of card to London and ten mile about it which be a plain  monopoly and direct against law the duty here be two shilling a gross upon  card and the receiver entitle to one half of the duty under the charter there  be a authority to the cardmakers to sea their own card and every particular  maker shall have his own stamp or mark so that the receiver of the duty may  know who be the maker of the card the design of this be that it may be plain  to the receiver who the card belong to and that the receiver may be enable  yearly to make up his account relate to the duty now as this be illegal the  payment of this duty have be discontinue long since this then appear to have  be the primary end of these mark there be another clause in the charter that  in order every cardmaker may know his card from another cardmaker each trader  shall lodge his mark or stamp with the receiver to prevent any fraud upon our  love subject this be a colourable end but if any weight be to be lie upon  these colourable recital it will be establish every other monopoly for all the  world know that there be a pompous recital in every monopoly of the great  benefit to trade accrueing from such charter of restriction atkins there be  another thing observable too that it be impossible to carry this clause atkins  er p into execution for the duty be illegal and sink the receiver sink with it  so that there be no person to receive the stamp or mark a objection have be  make that the defendant in use this mark prejudice the plaintiff by take away  his customer but there be no more weight in this than there will be in a  objection to one innkeeper set up the same sign with another there be a fact  set out by the defendant in his answer which be not at all deny by the  plaintiff that the cardmakers use quite different mark from what they do  former which show this charter be grow obsolete or otherwise all cardmakers if  they observe the charter will adhere to that sort of stamp which be direct  under it upon the whole there be no ground in this case to grant a injunction  against the defendant till the hear of the cause Reg lib a foe