Angell Elevator Lock Co. v. Manning

• Decision Date: 02 March 1965
• Citation: 348 Mass. 623,205 N.E.2d 245
• Parties: , 145 U.S.P.Q. 97 ANGELL ELEVATOR LOCK COMPANY, Inc. v. Thomas MANNING et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 245

205 N.E.2d 245

348 Mass. 623, 145 U.S.P.Q. 97

ANGELL ELEVATOR LOCK COMPANY, Inc. v. Thomas MANNING et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued Feb. 4, 1965.

Decided March 2, 1965.

Sheldon Newman, Chelsea, for defendants.

Robert G. Ward, Harvard, for plaintiff.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

The plaintiff (Angell) seeks, among other things, to enjoin Thomas Manning and his son Robert from making and selling an unpatented elevator lubricator similar to that made by Angell. Upon the basis of a confirmed master's report, the final decree (a) enjoined the Mannings 'from manufacturing * * * or selling * * * products patterned from or similar in appearance to * * * [Angell's] lubricator,' and (b) ordered them to pay to Angell $6,000 as damages plus interest and costs. The facts are stated as found by the master.

Thomas Manning entered the employ of a sole proprietorship, a predecessor of Angell, about forty years prior to 1957 when he was 'finally laid off.' He had been 'principal fabricator of' Angell's lubricators. He was 'a trusted and loyal employee * * * familiar with * * * the names and addresses of * * * [Angell's] customers,' and had 'attended to practically all phases of * * * [Angell's] business * * * with the exception of * * * bookkeeping.' In 1957, Angell's predecessor, then a partnership, began to pay Thomas a pension of $25 a month. With Angell's incorporation in 1960 the monthly pension checks, 'without consultation with Thomas' but with his knowledge, were marked '[p]ension and [c]onsulting fee.' Thomas was, however, 'not an employee of the corporation at any time * * * [after he was laid off] but * * * was given money as * * * [Angell's] pensioner' until after February, 1962, when Thomas refused to accept further money from Angell because Thomas 'and his son had copied * * * [Angell's] lubricator and were selling * * * [their] model in competition with' Angell and to its customers.

In October, 1960, Robert Manning, with Thomas's knowledge, sent a messenger to Angell's shop 'to procure one of Angell's lubricators without disclosing to Angell' that it was to be delivered to Robert. Robert dismantled the lubricator and used the parts to make patterns and molds from which lubricator parts were made. These were later assembled into lubricators substantially like Angell's except for minor changes. ¹ The Mannings 'intended to make their model look and operate like the Angell model.' Robert prepared advertising material bearing cuts and instructions similar to the material used by Angell in its advertising. Although the appearance 'of both sheets was quite similar,' Angell's name and address 'appeared conspicuously on its flyers' while the name 'Thomas Manning & Company' and its address 'appeared conspicuously on' Robert Manning's flyers, which differed in shape, size, color of paper, typography, and wording from the Angell flyers.

Robert communicated with some of Angell's customers and offered to sell lubricators to them at about twenty per cent less than Angell's price. Angell thereafter noticed a sharp decline in its sales and, in 1962 and 1963, this decline was caused by the 'marketing of Robert's units.' Angell's loss of profit to the date of filing the bill was $6,000.

Neither Angell nor Robert Manning ever have held a patent upon their respective lubricators nor have they had any trade marks or trade names for them. Angell's name appeared on the underside of a supporting bracket on its lubricator. Robert's lubricator omitted this name. 'Robert's finished lubricator was such a perfect copy of Angell's that it was nearly indistinguishable except for the different color of the painted casting and might well cause a person looking at it to believe that it had been manufactured by Angell.' Elevator guide rail lubricators are made and sold by many companies.

1. The master's findings (a) establish that Thomas Manning was not in Angell's employ between 1957 and 1962; and (b) furnish no basis for any conclusion that the pension, or indeed any employment agreement, imposed any limitation upon Thomas's right to work for his son or to use his experience, knowledge, and general skills (see Padover v. Axelson, 268 Mass. 148, 151, 167 N.E. 301) in the manufacture and sale of lubricators. There is no finding that Thomas removed any confidential list of Angell's customers or disclosed any trade secrets. In the circumstances, '[r]emembered information * * * [is] not confidential.' American Window Cleaning Co. of Springfield v. Cohen, 343 Mass. 195, 199, 178 N.E.2d 5. Cf. New England Overall Co., Inc. v. Woltmann, 343 Mass. 69, 73, 75-78, 176 N.E.2d 193.

2. There is no...