name or service mark subject to the rule of priority in order to prevent deception of the public. Nims, Unfair Competition and Trade-Marks 196 (4th ed. 1947); Findley Inc. v. Findley, 1966, 18 N.Y.2d 12, 271 N.Y.S.2d 652, 218 N.E.2d 531; Rogers Silverware Redemption Bureau v. Rogers Silver Premium Bureau, 133 Misc. 676, 233 N.Y.S. 286 (1929); Chickering v. Chickering Sons, 7 Cir. 1903, 120 F. 69; Henderson v. Peter Henderson Co., 7 Cir. 1925, 9 F.2d 787; King Pharr Canning Operations v. Pharr Canning Co., W.D. Ark. 1949, 85 F. Supp. 150; Cook Chemical Co. v. Cook Paint Varnish Co., 8 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 365; E. J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo, N.D.Ohio, 1949, 87 F. Supp. 433; L. Martin Co. v. L. Martin Wilckes Co., 75 N.J. Eq. 39, 71 A. 409 (1908); Rubel v. Allegretti Chocolate Cream Co., 76 Ill. App. 581 (1898), aff'd, 177 Ill. 129, 52 N.E. 487 (1898); Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids, 1914, 233 U.S. 461, 34 S.Ct. 648, 58 L.Ed. 1046; Goldberg v. Goldberg, 159 Ga. 761, 126 S.E. 823 (1925); McGarry v. Milne, 226 Mich. 566, 198 N.W. 178 (1924); Stern Furniture Co. v. Stern, Ohio App., 83 N.E.2d 804 (1948); 3 Callman, Unfair Competition and Trademarks, 1706 (2nd ed. 1950); Derenberg, Trade-Mark Protection and Unfair Trading 361-396 (1936); Handler and Pickett, Trade-Marks and Trade Names, 30 Colum.L. Rev. 168 (1930). It is true that plaintiff's trademark should have been refused registration if it had been "primarily merely a surname."
Otto and Hugo were interested in maintaining the yard in operation, at least until they could sell. Their conduct and the facts plainly indicate that the yard was reopened under plan and control of Otto and Hugo, whatever may have been the technical ownership, and that they used McQueen's services and their father's name to circumvent their agreement with plaintiffs. Upon this issue, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief. The situation also offers a sound basis for a claim of unfair competition under our decisions, some of which are: Penberthy Injector Co. v. Lee, 120 Mich. 174., Finney's Orchestra v. Finney's Famous Orchestra, 161 Mich. 289 (28 L.R.A. [N. S.] 458) ; People's Outfitting Co. v. People's Outlet Co., 170 Mich. 398; McGarry v. Milne, 226 Mich. 566. When McQueen resumed operations, he caused an advertisement to be inserted in the telephone directory under the name "John Kuschewski Coal Co."