sons, Ernest Albert Umney and John Charles Umney, joined the firm, and Percy Umney became the company solicitor. By 1898, John Charles Umney had taken over the management of the Coal Tar Soap section of the business. Readers of the Country-Side magazine in 1906 were offered the chance to buy an inexpensive cabinet frame for one shilling, in which they could stack twelve empty Wright's Coal Tar Soap packets to act as sliding drawers in a cabinet for natural history specimens. As the editorial mentioned: "the measurements have been chosen because so many of our readers are users of Wright's Coal Tar Soap". Wright's Coal Tar Soap was a regular advertiser in the magazine. Public limited company By 1909 the company was one of the leading pharmaceutical houses in the country, and in that year it became a public limited company with a capital of £135,000 with Charles Umney as chairman of the board of directors. The other directors were Charles Noel Layman (died 1909), Ernest Blakesley Layman, Herbert Cassin Wright, John Charles Umney, Frederick Noel Layman, and Ernest Albert Umney. Percy Umney was company solicitor; Ernest Albert Umney later became chairman of the company. During the first year of trading as a public limited company, the product range was enlarged to include Wright's Coal Tar Shaving Soap in powder form. By 1932, when a share issue of £280,000 was offered, the directors were Herbert Cassin Wright (chairman), Ernest Albert Umney (vice-chairman), Ernest Blakesley Layman, James Knight, James Hamerton, and Reginald Edward Conder. Hampshire Museum Hampshire Museum has four Coal Tar Vaporizers made by Wright, Layman & Umney in the early 20th century, and some bill-heads (invoices) which were sent to one of their customers, Messrs. Charles Mumby & Co, lemonade manufacturers of Gosport. Wright Layman & Umney Ltd v Wright In 1949 the company sued a trader who used a similar name. The law at the time relating to trademarks was covered by the Trade Marks Act 1938. Case law shows that a similar name is not always certain to lead to an injunction. It has been stated that where a trader adopts words in common use, some risk of confusion is inevitable; it would be wrong to allow someone to monopolise words. A similar confusion will occur when many people have a similar name. In Wright Layman & Umney Ltd v Wright, 1949, the rule was stated as