Rosenthal v. Blatt

• Decision Date: 03 May 1912
• Citation: 83 A. 387,80 N.J.E. 90
• Parties: ROSENTHAL et al. v. BLATT.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

83 A. 387

80 N.J.E. 90

ROSENTHAL et al.

v. BLATT.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

May 3, 1912.

Suit by Louis Rosenthal and others against Max Blatt. Bill dismissed.

Joseph B. Perskie and Bolte & Sooy, all of Atlantic City, for complainants.

Eugene Schwinghammer and C. L Goldenberg, both of Atlantic City, for defendant.

LEAMING, V. C. Complainants are owners of a business conducted by them as partners in three certain stores fronting on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City; the business in each store being conducted under the trade-name of "London Shop." The business so conducted is that of retail stores for the sale of gentlemen's furnishing goods, hats, caps, and ladies' millinery. Since the establishment of complainants' business under the name stated, defendant has established a store, fronting on the Boardwalk, the business of which is being conducted under the trade-name of "Page of London." The business conducted by defendant is similar to that of complainants. Complainants now seek an injunction to prevent defendant from using the name "Page of London" in connection with defendant's business, alleging as a ground for relief that the name "London Shop" used by complainants has become favorably known to the public as complainants' trade-name, and that the use of the name "Page of London" by defendant is operative to deceive the public as to the identity of the several stores, and to lead patrons of complainants' business to make purchases from defendant's store, under the belief that that store is one of the stores operated by complainants.

On the application for a preliminary injunction, I summarized my view of the law controlling controversies of this class as follows:

"This court may appropriately protect a complainant against unfair competition when it is found that the defendant is conducting a business in such manner that there exists, upon the part of defendant, express or implied representations that the business conducted by defendant is that of complainant. The reputation and good will which a man acquires are property rights, which are entitled to protection against wrongful invasion; and the public is entitled to protection against fraud. A trade-name appropriately used to designate a particular business of certain individuals will, in consequence, be protected. See 28 American & English Encyclopedia of Law (2d Ed.) pp. 345 to 348. The present inquiry is therefore whether defendant has adopted a trade-name so nearly resembling the trade-name of complainants as to deceive the public and injure complainants. It is manifest that the extent of resemblance of the names used is not the sole criterion. A name quite similar may be so used as not to deceive or injure; a name quite dissimilar may be used in such manner as to deceive and injure."

Preliminary relief was refused, because it did not then appear with sufficient certainty that complainants' rights had been or would be materially invaded to justify this court in granting a preliminary injunction.

It will be observed at once that the names "London Shop" and "Page of London" bear no resemblance as names, except such as arises by the use of the word "London" in each name....