Opinion by
Dithrich, J;,
In an opinion dismissing plaintiff’s exceptions to the Chancellor’s adjudication and decree nisi, the learned court en banc said: “The plaintiff, by his bill, seeks to restrain the defendants from the use of the name ‘Delco Valet Service’, because for ten years the plaintiff has been using the name ‘Delco Cleaners and Dyers’ and thereby contends that he is entitled to protection in the use of such a name.
“The Chancellor refused to restrain the use of the name ‘Delco Valet Service’ by the defendants, on the ground that ‘Delco’, in a colloquial sense, is a descriptive or geographical term [meaning Delaware County] and cannot be exclusively appropriated by anyone, unless such name has taken on a ‘secondary meaning’. The Chancellor’s refusal to grant relief is based upon the finding that the plaintiff had not established a ‘secondary meaning.’ ” In his brief “appellant agrees that this issue [as stated in the foregoing sentence] controls his appeal, . . .”
Decree affirmed.