Norton v. Chioda
| Decision Date | 02 January 1945 |
| Citation | 317 Mass. 446,58 N.E.2d 828 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEORGE F. NORTON & others v. AUGUSTINE CHIODA & others. |
September 25, 1944.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., QUA, DOLAN WILKINS, & SPALDING, JJ.
Unfair Competition. Unlawful Interference. Evidence, Matter of common knowledge. Laches. Equity Jurisdiction, Laches.
It is common knowledge that taxicabs are frequently hailed by prospective patrons in circumstances where only the front is visible.
The members of an association of independent owners and operators of taxicabs in a city, who had adopted and had used for seventeen years a certain color scheme and design which was essentially the same on all their cabs and which the public in that city had come to associate with them, were entitled to an injunction in a suit in equity against competing owners and operators of taxicabs in the same city who had adopted and been using for only a short time a color scheme and design on their cabs essentially the same as and intended by them to simulate the plaintiffs' and, especially in the nighttime and at any time to one looking at them from the front, likely to cause the public to believe that their cabs were those of the plaintiffs.
A suit in equity to enjoin unfair competition effected through use of a color scheme and design on the defendants' taxicabs, adopted by the defendants to simulate those on taxicabs of the plaintiffs, may be maintained without proof of actual deception of the public if a reasonable probability of such deception is established.
A finding, that laches barred maintenance of a suit in equity seeking relief on the ground of unfair competition in the use by one of the defendants of a color scheme and design on his taxicabs simulating those on taxicabs of the plaintiff, was warranted by proof that that defendant's alleged acts had continued for twelve years before the plaintiff sought relief; but a finding was not warranted that laches barred the plaintiff as against another defendant whose similar use of a color scheme and design had been for but one year and five months before the plaintiff sought relief and who was not shown to have been caused any disadvantage by such delay of the plaintiff in bringing suit.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on July 23, 1943. The suit was heard by Hammond, J., on a master's report.
H. T. George & J.
J. George, for the plaintiffs, submitted a brief.
H. J. Dumas, (W.
J. Moossa with him,) for the defendants.
This is a bill to restrain the defendants from using on their taxicabs a color scheme and design which the plaintiffs allege are similar to theirs. The master, to whom the case was referred, filed a report which was confirmed by an interlocutory decree from which no appeal was taken. The case comes here on the plaintiffs' appeal from a final decree dismissing the bill.
The master's findings may be summarized as follows: The fourteen plaintiffs are associated in the business of operating taxicabs in the city of Worcester under the name of Independent Taxi Operators Association (hereinafter called Independent). Although the membership has changed from time to time, Independent has been operating taxicabs in the city of Worcester continuously since 1926, the year it was formed. Independent's taxicabs (twenty-five in number) were owned and operated by the individual plaintiffs.
The defendants except Lukum and Tragis, were members of an association similar to Independent, known as the Public Service Taxicab Company (hereinafter called Public), and were also engaged in operating taxicabs in Worcester. Public was formed in May or June, 1943. The defendants Lukum and Tragis, who are not members of either association, also own and operate taxicabs in Worcester. The plaintiffs and all of the defendants are competitors in the taxicab business in Worcester.
Since its formation Independent has adopted and used the following color scheme and design for its vehicles: The top, upper portion of the body, hood and mudguards are black. The lower portion of the body and the wheels are of a "medium dark red or maroon" shade that is essentially the same on all the cabs. A stripe four and one half inches wide, consisting of two white lines with a black line in between, separates the upper and lower parts of the body. The letters "I T O A," in gold, are printed on the rear doors. Most of the cabs carry a roof light over the top of the windshield with a shield and letters "I T O A" painted on the glass in front of the light. On the rear of the body of some of the cabs there is painted a shield containing the letters "I T O A"; above the shield is the telephone number of Independent.
Public since its formation had adopted a color scheme which, except for slight differences, is essentially the same as that of Independent. The stripe, however, which separates the upper and lower portions of the body is of one color -- a very light bluish gray. Most of the cabs carry a roof light over the windshield with the word "Taxi" on it. Across both doors on both sides of the cab, and on the rear, are the words "Public Service Cab" and the telephone number. The lettering and figures on the Public cabs are white.
The defendant Lukum has been operating taxicabs in Worcester since 1921. On about March 1, 1942, he changed the color scheme of his cab (which had been yellow) to one, except for minor differences, similar to that of the plaintiffs. This was the first time he had ever used such a color scheme. The cab has a roof light above the windshield on the front glass of which is printed "Desoto Sky View Cab." These words also appear on each of the rear doors; the same words with the exception of the word cab appear on the back of the cab. All of the lettering on the cab is silver.
The defendant Tragis has been in the taxicab business in Worcester since 1920. From 1931 down to the present time he has operated one or more cabs with a color scheme (except for a black and white checkered stripe) substantially the same as that of the plaintiffs. The words "Checker Cab" appear on the shield.
At present the only cabs in Worcester that are painted red and black are those of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Certain locations of the streets are designated as taxicab stands. The plaintiffs obtain about seventy-five per cent of their business from the stands or "off the street" and about twenty-five per cent is obtained through telephone calls. At the time of the hearing before the master the "dim out" regulations did not permit any lights on taxicabs to be lighted after dark other than "head" and "tail" lights unless such other lights were shielded.
The ultimate conclusions of the master based "upon all the evidence, the . . . findings of fact and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom" were that the plaintiffs, by the long continued use of the color scheme and design upon their taxicabs and by advertising have built a business reputation with the public of the city of Worcester, and have accustomed such public to associate the color scheme and design with their business; that the use of the color scheme and design on the cabs of each of the defendants (which was adopted for the purpose of simulating that of the plaintiffs), "especially in the nighttime and at any time when the public might observe such cabs from the front only," is likely to lead the public to believe that the defendants' cabs are those of the plaintiffs; that the inscriptions and designs on the sides and rear of the defendants' cabs are so prominent that, in daylight or in reasonable nighttime illumination, the ordinary person would observe the same if he were in a position to see such cabs from the side or rear; and that the difference between the plaintiffs' and the defendants' cabs with respect to small lights over doors, inside markings and upholstery and colors of stripes (except as to the "Checker Cabs") is as to details of minor significance which the general public would not be likely to note. There was no evidence that the plaintiffs sustained any monetary loss by reason of the defendants' conduct.
At the hearing in the Superior Court the judge, after confirming the master's report, found, as agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial