Baker v. Baker
| Decision Date | 15 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | 81. |
| Citation | 115 F. 297 |
| Parties | BAKER v. BAKER (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
These are appeals by the complainant from decrees in two actions in equity brought to restrain unfair competition in trade. In the first action there was a decree for the complainant for an injunction and for nominal damages, and in the second there was a decree dismissing the complainant's bill.
Prior to 1894 the chocolates and cocoas manufactured by the concern of Walter Baker & Co. had acquired great popularity with dealers and retail purchasers throughout the country. Their business had been long established; their products had always maintained a high quality of excellence; and the word 'Baker,' when applied to these articles, had come to represent to purchasers generally the products of Walter Baker & Co. The word had become a trade-name of such value in the commerce of those articles that various persons of the name of Baker had been led to engage in making and selling in the expectation of marketing them as the products of the original concern. In 1894 the complainant induced by this notion, commenced the manufacture and sale of chocolates and cocoas at Winchester, Va. He put them upon the market as those of 'W. H. Baker & Co.,' in packages simulating in various respects those of Walter Baker & Co. and became an extensive competitor with that concern. In 1897, in a suit brought against him by the successors of the original concern, he was enjoined from using in his business the name 'Baker' or 'Baker's' alone on labels, wrappers, advertisements, etc., or the name of 'W. H. Baker & Co.,' and was required to insert in lieu thereof the name 'W. H. Baker, of Winchester Va.,' and also, in as prominent type, the statement, 'W. H. Baker is distinct from the old chocolate manufacture of Walter Baker & Co.' In August, 1899, the defendant commenced the sale, and later the manufacture, of chocolates and cocoas at Syracuse, N.Y.; being partly induced thereto, as the complainant had been, by the expectation of profiting by the trade-name of Baker, but also induced by the hope of diverting to himself some part of the business of the complainant. He put his articles upon the market as those of 'Wm. H. Baker.' He employed as his managing agent one Sanders, who had formerly been in the employ of Walter Baker & Co., and who had subsequently been employed by the complainant. Through Sanders he was able to approach the customers of the complainant; and, to do so more effectually, he issued circulars to them, simulating the circulars of the complainant, calculated to lead them to believe that orders sent to him would be filled by the complainant. He caused his circulars and the labels on his packages to be impressed with a notice which read, 'Wm. H. Baker is distinct from the old chocolate manufactory of Walter Baker & Co.,' but in both the circulars and labels his place of business was given at Syracuse. In October, 1899, the complainant filed a bill in equity against the defendant, alleging unfair competition in trade, and praying for an injunction and an accounting. In that action a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from using in his circulars, or on his packages, or in his business, in any form, the words 'W. H. Baker,' or 'Wm. H. Baker is distinct from the old chocolate manufactory of Walter Baker & Co.,' but permitting him to use the name 'William H. Baker' conjoined with 'Syracuse.' That action proceeded to an interlocutory decree by which the injunction preliminarily granted was made perpetual, and an accounting was ordered. Upon the accounting it was found by the master that the complainant was entitled to nominal damages only. The complainant filed exceptions to the master's report. These exceptions were overruled, and a final decree was entered in conformity with the interlocutory decree and the master's report.
During the pendency of this action the defendant changed his business methods, and conformed to the requirements of the preliminary injunction. He not only did this, but he conformed his advertisements, packages, labels, etc., to the approval of the successors of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regis v. Jaynes
... ... N. K. Fairbank Co. v ... Windsor (C. C.) 118 F. 96, overruled as to some points ... 124 F. 200, 61 C. C. A. 233; Walter Baker Co. v ... Slack, 130 F. 514, 65 C. C. A. 138; Williams v ... Mitchell, 106 F. 168, 45 C. C. A. 265; Lewis v ... Goodwin, 36 Ch. D. 1. Equity in ... ...
-
C.A. Briggs Co. v. National Wafer Co.
...S.W. 970; Banzhaf v. Chase, 150 Cal. 180, 88 P. 704; And see Clark Thread Co. v. William Clark Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 789, 40 A. 686; Baker v. Baker, 115 F. 297, 53 C. A. 157; J. F. Rowley Co. v. Rowley, 193 F. 390, 393, 113 C. C. A. 386. See also the reasoning of Loring, J., in Cohen v. Nagle, ......
-
Nelson v. J.H. Winchell & Co., Inc.
...in Weener v. Brayton, 152 Mass. 102, 103, 25 N.E. 46, 8 L. R. A. 640, Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 322, 20 L.Ed. 581, and Baker v. Baker, 115 F. 297, 53 C. A. 157, relied on by the defendants, is perfectly correct as the statement of a general rule, but is not applicable to this case, ......
-
Buono v. Viviano & Bros., Macaroni Manufacturing Co.
...goods, to their deception, believing at the time of making the purchase that the defendant's goods were the goods of the plaintiff. Baker v. Baker, 115 F. 297; Coates v. Thread Co., 149 U.S. 562; Daviess County D. Co. v. Martinoni, 117 F. 186; Goodyear Co. v. Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598; Heide......