Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville
| Decision Date | 21 September 1914 |
| Parties | PREST-O-LITE CO. v. BOURNONVILLE et ux. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
W. P Preble, of New York City, for defendants.
A preliminary injunction was granted in this case by the late Judge Cross. The evidence before him was, in no material respect, different from that presented on final hearing. The practices which the bill seeks to prevent have been the subject of litigation in several districts, and have been passed upon by two Circuit Courts of Appeals. In each case an injunction has been issued, at least as broad as that granted by Judge Cross. Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Avery Lighting Co., 161 F. 648 (C.C.N.D.N.Y.); Prest-O-Lite Co. v Post & Lester Co., 163 F. 63 (C.C.D. Conn.); Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bogen, 209 F. 915 (C.C.S.D cal.); Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Davis, 209 F. 917 (D.C.S.D. Ohio, W.D.), affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 6th Cir., July 25, 1914, 215 F. 349, 131 C.C.A. 491; Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co., 215 F. 692 131 C.C.A. 626 (C.C.A. 7th Cir.). I am also informed by counsel (although I have not seen copies of the opinions) that the same disposition was made of similar cases in the district of South Carolina (Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Jenkins, not reported) and in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Auto Equipment Co., not reported).
There are no facts in the present case which distinguish it from the cases above cited. The decision in this case might therefore properly be rested on those authorities, as I consider them entirely sound. All of the points urged on behalf of the defendants, save one which I will hereafter discuss, have been considered and decided adversely to defendants' contention by one or more of those cases. The defendants are competitors of the complainant in the manufacture and sale of acetylene gas. The complainant has established a system for marketing its gas, which is fully described in the various opinions to which I have referred. I will therefore not attempt to explain it in detail. The evidence convinces me that the defendants were, at the time the preliminary injunction was granted, engaged in refilling and delivering tanks, which had been originally distributed by the complainant under its system, and bearing the trade-name 'Prest-O-Lite' (which the complainant had adopted and which had become generally recognized), to various automobile supply dealers in the city of Newark, on an extensive scale. These tanks were then distributed by the dealers among automobile owners as tanks containing gas manufactured by the complainant, there being no way by which a purchaser could ascertain the deception. The defendants, I am convinced, had knowledge of this, and for that matter were actual participants therein.
While the gas furnished by the complainant has become recognized very generally as of excellent quality, probably the most important inducement to an automobilist to purchase the complainant's tank and gas is the fact that, under the complainant's system, a holder of one of these tanks (when its supply of gas has become exhausted, or it has been damaged or worn out) may exchange it almost anywhere in the United States or Canada, at a depot established by the complainant, for the same kind of a tank fully charged with gas at a relatively small cost. This exchange could not be made, under the complainant's system, with a tank which had been refilled by any one other than the complainant. The defendants have no such system, nor do they furnish tanks their business being confined to refilling. It is clear that the defendants could not, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miles Laboratories v. Seignious
...& Refining Co. v. Godfrey, 8 Cir., 158 F. 225, 14 Ann.Cas. 8; Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's Summit, Mo., D.C., 198 F. 532; Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville, D.C., 260 F. 440; Local No. 7 v. Bowen, D.C., 278 F. 271; Lambert v. Yellowley, 2 Cir., 4 F.2d 915; Mutual Oil Co. v. Zehrung, D.C., 11 F.2d ......
-
Harris v. Brown
...Ct. 529, 51 L. Ed. 821; Bitterman v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 28 S. Ct. 91, 52 L. Ed. 171, 12 Ann. Cas. 693; Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville (D. C.) 260 F. 440; Larabee v. Dolley (C. C.) 175 F. 365; Humes v. City of Ft. Smith (C. C.) 93 F. 857; Board of Trade of Chicago v. Cella C......
-
Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc. v. Acetylene Welding Co.
... ... Acetylene Welding Company, for a considerable period of time ... before and after the filing of the bill in this case, was ... engaged in the practices which have heretofore been held by ... this court, in Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville, 260 ... F. 440, 442, 446, to constitute an infringement of ... plaintiff's trade-mark, as well as unfair competition ... The plaintiff, as against that defendant, is therefore ... clearly entitled to an injunction as broad as that which was ... preliminarily granted in this case. But I am ... ...
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. A. & P. Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.
...the test of the value of the matter in dispute, but the value to the complainant of the business to be protected. Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville (D. C.) 260 F. 440, 441; Local No. 7 of Bricklayers', etc., Union v. Bowen (D. C.) 278 F. 271, 273; Lambert v. Yellowley (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 915......