Healer v. Bloomberg Bros., Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1947
• Citation: 321 Mass. 476,73 N.E.2d 895
• Parties: HEALER et al. v. BLOOMBERG BROS., Inc.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

321 Mass. 476

73 N.E.2d 895

HEALER et al.

v.BLOOMBERG BROS., Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 25, 1947.

Suit by Karl H. Healer and another against Bloomberg Brothers, Incorporated, to restrain defendant from using the name ‘Bond Jewelers' or any other name containing the word ‘Bond’. From a decree granting plaintiffs an injunction, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Morton, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and LUMMUS, QUA, DOLAN, and RONAN, JJ.

F. L. Simpson, of Boston, for plaintiffs.

S. B. Stein and H. J. Stein, both of Boston, for defendant.

LUMMUS, Justice.

The plaintiffs, partners under the firm name of William Bond & Son in the retail business of manufacturing, selling and repairing timepieces, silverware, jewelry and the like on Park Street in Boston, being the successors of the old firm of William Bond & Son which was founded in 1793, bring this bill in equity against the defendant corporation which, since December, 1945, has been doing a similar retail business in Chelsea under the name of ‘Bond Jewelers,’ to restrain it from using that name or any other containing the word ‘Bond.’

From a final decree granting the plaintiffs an injunction, the defendant appealed. The case comes here on a report of material facts and a report of the evidence. The judge justifiably found that the word ‘Bond’ has come to have a secondary meaning as indicating the business and products of the plaintiffs. Jays, Inc., v. Purcell, 313 Mass. 127, 46 N.E.2d 556. The president of the defendant corporation testified that he chose the word ‘Bond’ as expressive of the defendant's business because he wished a patriotic name, and ‘Bond’ suggested a Victory bond. But the judge justifiably found, on the contrary, that ‘the use by the defendant of the name ‘Bond’ in connection with the jewelry business was to secure some advantage from the use of that name so well established in the jewelry trade.'

In Summerfield Co. of Boston v. Prime Furniture Co., 242 Mass. 149, 155, 136 N.E. 396, 398, Rugg, C. J., said, ‘The underlying principle, which is the foundation of equitable relief in this class of cases, is that one trader shall not compete with another for public patronage by adopting intentionally means adapted to deceive the public into thinking that it is trading with the latter when in fact dealing with the former, and thus palming off his goods as those of another. The relief is based on the existence of an acquired reputation and good will in connection with business...