Maola Ice Cream Co. of N. C. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co.

Citation238 N.C. 317,77 S.E.2d 910
Decision Date14 October 1953
Docket NumberNo. 19,19
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Parties, 99 U.S.P.Q. 296 MAOLA ICE CREAM CO. OF NORTH CAROLINA, Inc. v. MAOLA MILK & ICE CREAM CO.

R. E. Whitehurst, New Bern, for defendant-appellant.

Rodman & Rodman, Washington, for plaintiff-appellee.

PARKER, Justice.

The plaintiff bases its action upon unfair competition. These facts are clearly stated in the complaint and amended complaint. 1. In 1935 F. E. Mayo & Co., Inc owned an ice cream plant in Washington and another ice cream plant in New Bern: from both plants the company manufactured, distributed and sold ice cream under the trade name or trademark 'Maola.' 2. During the time the company owned both plants there existed between the two plants a welldefined division of territory. The territory served by the Washington plant consisting generally of that part of Eastern North Carolina north of Vanceboro, and that served by the New Bern plant the town of Vanceboro and southwardly. 3. In 1935 the company sold to H. L. Barnes and wife, the defendant's predecessors in title, the New Bern plant, and it was clearly understood, and the agreement of sale so provided, that the use of the trade name 'Maola' was limited to the territory theretofore served by the New Bern plant. 4. From then until March 1953, with one or two rare exceptions along the border of the respective territories, the territorial division theretofore existing was observed by the defendant and its predecessor and the plaintiff and its predecessors. 5. In March 1953, the defendant purchased a dairy in Williamston, North Carolina, in territory theretofore continually and exclusively served by the plaintiff and its predecessors, and from said dairy began the distribution and sale of ice cream products in cartons carrying an identical trademark 'Maola', as those used by plaintiff. 6. That this has created untold confusion and uncertainty on the part of the buying public as to the identity of the manufacturer, is unfair competition, and unless the defendant is restrained from such acts in plaintiff's territory, plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury. 7. A predecessor in title of plaintiff in 1944 registered in the Secretary of State's office the trademark 'Maola', and in 1947 the trademark was assigned to plaintiff, who is now the owner.

It is well-established law that F. E. Mayo & Co., Inc. had the legal right to sell and assign its New Bern plant with the business of that plant and the right to use the trade name or trademark 'Maola' on ice cream there manufactured, distributed and sold, and Barnes and wife succeeded to all the rights of the transferor with respect to the use and enjoyment thereof, except as such use and enjoyment may have been restricted by a valid contract. Cowan v. Fairbrother, 118 N.C. 406, 24 S.E. 212, 32 L.R.A. 829; Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, 169 N.C. 679, 86 S.E. 603; Ely lilly & Co. v. Saunders, 216 N.C. 163, 4 S.E.2d 528, 125 A.L.R. 1308; 52 Am.Jur. pp. 526 and 530; 38 C.J.S., Good Will, § 7, page 954; 63 C.J. p. 518. The rights of the parties with respect to the use of trade names or trademarks involved in a transaction may be governed or restricted by contract between them. Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, supra; 52 Am.Jur. p. 530; 63 C.J. p. 518.

Goodwill exists as property merely as an incident to other property rights, and is not susceptible of being owned and disposed of separately from the property right to which it is incident. Goodwill may adhere to the reputation acquired by an established business, the right to use a particular name or trademark. 38 C.J.S., Good Will, § 3, pages 951 and 952, where the cases are cited.

A sale of a business and its goodwill carries with it the implied obligation that the seller will in good faith do nothing to impair the advantages and benefits which the purchaser has acquired by the purchase. While there is some authority apparently to the contrary, the weight of authority seems to be that, in the absence of agreement as to the right to compete, the vendor of a premises and its goodwill is not precluded from engaging in a similar business in the vicinity, provided he does not interfere with the purchaser's enjoyment of the premises sold, and provided that he does not engage in unfair competition. Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, supra; 38 C.J. S., Good Will, § 12, page 957.

The plaintiff alleges in its pleadings that F. E. Mayo & Co., Inc. owned the Washington and New Bern Plants, and used the trade name or trademark 'Maola', on products sold from both plants; that in 1935 Mayo & Co., sold the New Bern plant with the right to use the trademark 'Maola' to a predecessor in title of the defendant. If that were the entire contract, it would seem that the defendant had a legal right to buy a dairy in Williamston and distribute and sell its products there under the trademark 'Maola' in rivalry with the plaintiff without being guilty of unfair competition, as there is no allegation in the plaintiff's pleadings that the defendant has changed its cartons and the way 'Maola' is placed on the cartons from the manner it has customarily used them with intent to confuse the buying public.

However, the plaintiff alleges in its pleadings that there existed between the Washington and New Bern plants a welldefined division of territory served by each: the territory served by the Washington plant consisting generally of that part of Eastern North Carolina north of Vanceboro, and that served by the New Bern plant the town of Vanceboro and southwardly, and that in the sale of the New Bern plant in 1935 to defendant's predecessor in title it was clearly understood and the agreement of sale so provided that the use of the trade name 'Maola' was limited to the territory theretofore served by the New Bern plant. There is no allegation in plaintiff's pleadings that the agreement of sale was in writing, and signed by H. L. Barnes and wife.

The plaintiff contends that when the defendant in March 1953 purchased a dairy in Williamston and began the distribution and sale of its products under the trade name 'Maola', it was guilty of unfair competition and that in its complaint and amended complaint it has alleged a good cause of action for unfair competition. That raises for our determination the question as to whether the restriction or more correctly the division of territory in the agreement declared upon in plaintiff's pleadings is valid and enforceable. It seems to be illegal on three grounds.

First. If the alleged agreement was a limitation upon Barnes and his wife, and their successors in title, to do business anywhere in the state of North Carolina, the agreement was not in writing signed by Barnes and his wife. P.L.N.C.1913, Ch. 41, sec. 4, now G.S. Ch. 75, § 75-4, requires such an agreement to be in writing and signed by the party who agreed not to enter into any such business within such territory to be enforceable.

Second. It clearly appears from the alleged agreement that the division of territory was not merely for the purpose of conveying to Barnes and his wife, and their successors, the New Bern plant with the right to use the name 'Maola' and to obtain all the patronage of that plant, but also for the purpose of shutting off competition by preventing Barnes and his wife and their successors from engaging in the ice cream business under the trade name 'Maola' within all that part of Eastern North Carolina north of Vanceboro. There is no allegation that the plaintiff is serving ice cream products in all Eastern North Carolina or was in 1935. Such a division of territory was not necessary to afford fair protection to Mayo & Co., and interfered with the interests of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Lane v. Griswold
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1968
    ...v. Lee County, 224 N.C. 508, 31 S.E.2d 535; Aiken v. Sanderford, 236 N.C. 760, 73 S.E.2d 911; Moola Ice Cream Co. of North Carolina, Inc. v. Moola Milk & Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 77 S.E.2d 910; Beam v. Almond, 271 N.C. 509, 157 S.E.2d 215. This is another accepted rule in appellate prac......
  • State ex rel. East Lenoir Sanitary Dist. v. City of Lenoir
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1958
    ...248 N.C. 235, 102 S.E.2d 829; Amazon Cotton Mills Co. v. Duplan Corp., 246 N.C. 88, 97 S.E.2d 449; Maola Ice Cream Co. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 77 S.E.2d 910; Aiken v. Sanderford, 236 N.C. 760, 73 S.E.2d 911; Watson v. Lee County, 224 N.C. 508, 31 S.E.2d 535. Before one ......
  • In re Thomas
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 25, 1999
    ...935, 575 N.Y.S.2d 545, 547 (1991); Dillion v. Anderson, 358 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.Civ.App.1962); Maola Ice Cream Co. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 321, 77 S.E.2d 910, 914 (1953); 38 Am.Jur.2d Goodwill § 19 (1968).2 Upon selling a business, in a transaction including the busine......
  • Bicycle Transit Authority, Inc. v. Bell, 134A85
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1985
    ...have held above that the contract does not adversely affect the public's interest in, e.g., free trade. Compare Ice Cream Co. v. Ice Cream Co., 238 N.C. 317, 77 S.E.2d 910 (1953) (agreement not to compete which extended into a territory where the business did not originally operate was held......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • North Carolina. Practice Text
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (FIFTH). Volume II
    • December 9, 2014
    ...at *7; see id. at *15. 48. 97 S.E. 392 (N.C. 1918). 49. Id. at 394. 50. See Maola Ice Cream Co. of N.C. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co., 77 S.E.2d 910 (N.C. 1953). 51. 172 S.E.2d 237 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970). 52. Id. at 242-43. The covenant had been challenged as a violation of § 75-5(b)(6), now ......
  • North Carolina
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes. Fourth Edition Volume II
    • January 1, 2009
    ...at *7; see id. at *15. 45. 97 S.E. 392 (N.C. 1918). 46. Id. at 394. 47. See Maola Ice Cream Co. of N.C. v. Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co., 77 S.E.2d 910 (N.C. 1953). 48. 172 S.E.2d 237 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970). The covenant had been challenged as a violation of § 75-5(b)(6), now repealed. 49. Id. a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT