Giragosian v. Chutjian

• Decision Date: 01 March 1907
• Citation: 80 N.E. 647,194 Mass. 504
• Parties: GIRAGOSIAN v. CHUTJIAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

194 Mass. 504

80 N.E. 647

GIRAGOSIAN v. CHUTJIAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 1, 1907

COUNSEL

E. D. Chadwick, for appellant.

Albert S. Apsey, for appellee.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The plaintiff contends that the defendant has interfered with his rights to the use of his trade-name, 'Oriental Process Rug Renovating Company,' as a designation of the business carried on by him. The presiding justice found that the plaintiff has used this name since September, 1900, and that the defendant began to carry on a business similar to that of the plaintiff at about the same time, under the name 'Oriental Rug & Carpet Renovating Works.' 'When the defendant adopted this name, the plaintiff had acquired no rights in his own trade-name; it had not become identified with the plaintiff, either among dealers or with the general public, and the defendant adopted this name in good faith without any intention of wronging the plaintiff or of acquiring the plaintiff's business, or of palming off his own business as that of the plaintiff. The defendant also advertised his business considerably, generally under the name, 'Chutjian Bros. Oriental Rug & Carpet Renovating Works.' * * * Neither one of the parties use any process of cleaning or repairing rugs which is peculiar to himself. Each is familiar with and uses the processes common in Oriental countries, so far as there are any such peculiar processes. Each does as good work as the other.' Upon these findings, neither has acquired any better right to the use of his trade-name than has the other to the use of his trade-name. The name used by the defendant is nothing more than a simple description of his establishment, in reference to the kind of business carried on there. It is a name which any one engaged in that business properly may use, if he does nothing which tends to deprive another of the benefit of his good reputation among his customers. If a use of it would indicate to the public that his establishment was that of another person who had become favorably known in the trade, and would thus take away from that person business which otherwise would go to him because of his good reputation, he might be required to accompany the name with something to show that his was a separate business. Fox Co. v. Glynn, 191 Mass. 344, 78 N.E. 89; Cohen v. Nagle, 190 Mass. 4, 76 N.E. 276, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 964; American Waltham Watch Company v. United States Watch Company, 173 Mass. 85, 53 N.E. 141, 43 L. R. A. 826, 73 Am. St. Rep. 263. But the facts in the present case show no reason for enjoining the defendant. Fox Company v. Glynn, ubi supra.

The fact that the defendant, in 1904, used the name 'Oriental Carpet & Rug Renovating Works' so that it would appear alphabetically in the...