Cal. Oil Co. v. Reingold

• Decision Date: 21 July 1949
• Docket Number: No. C-1721.,C-1721.
• Citation: 68 A.2d 572
• Parties: CALIFORNIA OIL CO. v. REINGOLD et al.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

68 A.2d 572

CALIFORNIA OIL CO.

v.REINGOLD et al.

No. C-1721.

Superior Court of New JerseyChancery Division.

July 21, 1949.

The California Oil Company sought an interlocutory injunction restraining Irving Reingold, individually and trading as Rein Motors and others, from using the trade-mark, name and brands of plaintiff in connection with retail sale of gasoline at prices below those fixed by plaintiff.

The Superior Court, Chancery Division, Grimshaw, J.S.C., granted an injunction and held that plaintiff's product was in fair and open competition and that plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements in setting a minimum price for resale.

Francis V. D. Lloyd, Hackensack (Morrison, Lloyd & Griggs, Hackensack), for plaintiff.

Albert S. Gross, Hackensack (George J. Kauper, Union City), for defendants.

GRIMSHAW, J.S.C.

This matter is presently before me on a motion by the plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark, name and brands of the plaintiff in connection with the retail sale of gasoline at prices below those fixed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, California Oil Company, a Delaware Corporation, authorized to do business in New Jersey, is engaged in the production and sale of gasoline. It markets its products under the trademark and name of ‘Calso’ and ‘Calso Supreme’. As a result of advertising, these names and brands have acquired a special significance in connection with the products of the plaintiff and are, as a consequence, a valuable part of the good will which plaintiff enjoys.

Defendants, Irving Reingold and Philip Stark, trading as Rein Motors, operate a gasoline service station in the City of Hackensack. At this station defendants sell at retail the gasoline produced by the plaintiff. In doing so these defendants use the trademark, name and brands of the plaintiff.

On March 4, 1949, plaintiff, in order to secure for itself the protection afforded by the provisions of the so-called Fair Trade Act, R.S. 56:4-3, 6, N.J.S.A., executed a contract with Refinery Calso Station, one of the retailers of its products. In the contract, plaintiff fixed the minimum retail selling price for its product sold under the name of ‘Calso’ at 17.1 cents per gallon and the minimum retail price of its product sold under the name of ‘Calso Supreme’ at 19.1 cents per gallon. These prices were in addition to all state and federal sales and excise taxes. Following the execution of the contract, plaintiff notified all retailers of its products, including these defendants, of the minimum retail prices so fixed. In April 1949 plaintiff notified all its retailers, including these defendants that thereafter the minimum resale price for ‘Calso’ would be 17.7 cents per gallon and for ‘Calso Supreme’ 19.7 cents per gallon, exclusive of state and federal sales and excise taxes. Defendants failed to charge the prices set by the plaintiff. They sold and still continue to sell plaintiff's products at a price approximately 2.4 cents below the minimum price plaintiff has set. Plaintiff protested and sought to have defendants follow its price list but defendants refused and this litigation ensued.

That the enactment of the Fair Trade Act, R.S. 56:4-3, 6, N.J.S.A., was within the authority of the legislature is no longer open to question. Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram Distillers Corporation, 299 U.S. 183, 57 S.Ct. 139, 81 L.Ed. 109, 106 A.L.R. 1476; Johnson & Johnson v. Weissbard, 121 N.J.Eq. 585, 191 A. 873. Nor can it be disputed that the...