Healer v. Bloomberg Bros.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1947 |
| Citation | 73 N.E.2d 895,321 Mass. 476,74 U.S.P.Q. 142 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | KARL H. HEALER & another v. BLOOMBERG BROS., INC. |
December 5, 1946.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., LUMMUS, QUA DOLAN, & RONAN, JJ.
Unlawful Interference. Unfair Competition. Trade Name.
In a suit in equity by a firm, long engaged on Park Street in Boston in the retail business of manufacturing, selling and repairing timepieces, silverware, jewelry and the like under a firm name which included the word Bond, to restrain a corporation recently engaged in a similar business in Chelsea from using that word in its business name, a decree for the plaintiff was proper on findings supported by reported evidence that the word Bond had come to have a secondary meaning as indicating the business and products of the plaintiffs, that its use by the defendant was "to secure some advantage" therefrom, that there was competition between the parties, that the defendant had advertised its business throughout the greater Boston area, which advertising reached customers of the plaintiffs, and that confusion, both in the trade and among the customers of the plaintiffs, had resulted and would result from the similarity in names.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on March 29, 1946. The case was heard by Morton, J.
S. B. Stein, (H.
J. Stein with him,) for the defendant.
F. L. Simpson, for the plaintiffs.
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 to 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 . 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial