Klein v. Nat'l Pressure Cooker Co.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
• Writing for the Court: TERRY, Judge, delivering the opinion of the Court.
• Citation: 64 A.2d 529
• Parties: KLEIN v. NATIONAL PRESSURE COOKER CO.
• Decision Date: 21 February 1949

64 A.2d 529

KLEIN
v.
NATIONAL PRESSURE COOKER CO.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Feb. 21, 1949.

Suit by the National Pressure Cooker Company, a Wisconsin corporation, against Philip Klein, trading as Phil's Distributors, to enjoin defendant from engaging in alleged unfair competition in violation of Delaware Fair Trade Act. From decree overruling defendant's demurrer to the bill, 57 A.2d 356, the defendant appeals.

Decree sustained.

No. 9, February Session, 1948 Term.

This is an appeal from a decree entered in the Court of Chancery in and for New Castle County.

The complainant below, National Pressure Cooker Co., a Wisconsin corporation, filed its bill against the respondent, Philip Klein, trading as Phil's Distributors, seeking an injunction to restrain and enjoin the respondent from engaging in unfair competition with the complainant in violation of the provisions of Chapter 201, Volume 43, Laws of Delaware, designated as the ‘Fair Trade Act’.

The pertinent allegations of the bill are that the complainant for some years

64 A.2d 530

past has been a producer and distributor of certain commodities known as pressure cookers, together with certain appliances used in connection therewith which are distributed, marketed and sold at retail to the consumer under the following brand or trade names: ‘Presto Cooker’, ‘National Pressure Cooker’, ‘Presto Divider’, ‘Aluna Cleaning Pads', and ‘Presto Timer’; that the complainant has spent large sums of money to advertise and promote the sales of its products under the brands or trade names as indicated, and has a valuable property interest in the good will attached to such names and its products; that in order to protect its corporate name, brands or trade names and good will, and pursuant to the provisions of the ‘Fair Trade Act’, complainant entered into fair trade contracts, commencing on February 14, 1945, with a large number of retail dealers who sell its products in this State; that such fair trade agreements between the complainant and its local dealers are still in force and effect; that pursuant to the aforementioned fair trade agreements, the complainant promulgated a schedule of the applicable minimum resale prices for the products manufactured, produced and distributed by it for retail sale in this State, designated as a ‘Fair Trade Price List’, which schedule was attached to each contract and which price list also is now in effect in this State; that the respondent is an individual engaged in the retail sale of commodities, articles and home applicances in the City of Wilmington and has never entered into a contract with the complainant under the provisions of the ‘Fair Trade Act’; that the respondent has been informed and notified of the fair trade agreements, including the fair trade price list which is now in force and effect in this State, between the complainant and a number of retail dealers who sell the complainant's products; that the respondent has sold and offered for sale, and will continue to sell and offer for sale, the complainant's products as indicated under the brand or trade names aforesaid at prices below the applicable minimum resale price contained in the fair trade price list, as established by the complainant in violation of the provisions of the ‘Fair Trade Act’; that the respondent has repeatedly ignored the complainant's request that he refrain from selling or offering for sale the complainant's products under the brand or trade names above designated at prices below the applicable minimum resale prices in force and effect in this State; that the good will of the complainant and the good will attached to complainant's products, which are marketed or sold under the brand or trade names above set forth, will be irreparably damaged and injured in this State and elsewhere unless the respondent is restrained and enjoined from engaging in unfair competition in the respects as set forth, and that, even though the respondent is not a party to a fair trade contract with complainant under the provisions of the statute, the respondent nevertheless is guilty of unfair competition.

The bill concludes with a prayer that the respondent, his agents, servants, employees, associates or other persons in any manner connected with the respondent, be perpetually enjoined and restrained from engaging in unfair competition with the complainant in violation of the ‘Fair Trade Act of this State’ and from willfully and knowingly advertising, selling, or offering for sale any commodity manufactured, produced or distributed by complainant under the brand or trade names of ‘Presto Cooker’, ‘National Pressure Cooker’, ‘Presto Divider’, ‘Aluna Cleaning Pads', ‘Presto Timer’, or any of them at less than the price stipulated in any contract entered into pursuant to the Delaware ‘Fair Trade Act’ between complainant and any other person in this State.

The respondent demurred, averring ‘that the provisions of the Delaware Fair Trade Act, Act of April 22, 1941, Chapter 201, Volume 43, Laws of Delaware, upon which the complainant's cause of action is based, are unconstitutional and hence void by reason of the failure of the title to said Fair Trade Act to comply with the requirements of Article 2, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of Delaware.’

The Chancellor entered a decree wherein he overruled...