Thompson v. Spagnuolo

• Decision Date: 28 May 1942
• Citation: 311 Mass. 597,42 N.E.2d 498
• Parties: THOMPSON v. SPAGNUOLO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

311 Mass. 597

42 N.E.2d 498

THOMPSON

v.SPAGNUOLO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 28, 1942.

Bill in equity by Augusta Thompson, executrix of Henrietta Burden, against Gennaro V. Spagnuolo, for injunction against use of particular words in connection with drug store. From adverse interlocutory and final decrees, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Fosdick, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, DOLAN, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

M. L. Brown, of Boston, for plaintiff.

F. P. Fralli, of Boston, for defendant.

RONAN, Justice.

This bill in equity, brought by the executrix of Henrietta Burden, seeks to enjoin the defendant from using the words ‘Burden,’ ‘Burden's Drugs' or ‘Burden's Pharmacy’ in connection with a drug store conducted by him in Boston. The bill as amended alleges that Henrietta Burden, a registered pharmacist, was engaged from 1906 to 1911 in maintaining a drug store which she transferred, in 1911, to Burden & Co., Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, but which she thereafter for many years conducted under her sole supervision; that she was the only person by the name of Burden known to the public in connection with the business of the said drug store; that since 1906 the business was generally known as ‘Burden's,’ ‘Burden's Drugs' or ‘Burden's Pharmacy’; that the defendant, in June, 1940, purchased the furniture, fixtures and good will of the said business, but that the transfer of the good will did not give the defendant the right to use any of these three names; that the defendant since said purchase has conducted the drug store and ‘has used and is continuing to use the name ‘Burden’ with intent to represent it to be the name of Henrietta Burden' for the purpose of defrauding the estate and deceiving the public. The bill alleges that the defendant is using the three names without the previous written consent of Henrietta Burden or her legal representative. The plaintiff appealed from an interlocutory decree refusing to permit her to amend the bill in the form that she first suggested, and from an interlocutory decree sustaining a second demurrer after the bill had been amended in accordance with leave granted by the court, and from a final decree dismissing the bill.

The plaintiff contends that the bill is based upon G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 110, § 4, which provides that ‘A person who conducts business in the commonwealth shall not assume or continue to use in his business the name of a person formerly connected with him in partnership or the name of any other person, either alone or in connection with his own or with any other name or designation, without the consent in writing of such person or of his legal representatives.’

This statute gives a right, which was unknown to common law or to equity, to restrain the unauthorized use by another of a person's name in conducting a commercial enterprise. Bowman v. Floyd, 3 Allen 76,80 Am.Dec. 55;Kelly v. Morrison, 231 Mass. 574, 121 N.E. 418. The plaintiff, however, is not entitled to this statutory remedy unless she alleged and proved that the defendant was using the name of the testatrix in conjunction with his business. Hallett v. Cumston, 110 Mass. 29;Lowenstein v. Lowenstein's, Inc., 294 Mass. 133, 1 N.E.2d 183. The bill as amended does not allege, and the plaintiff does not contend, that the defendant is employing the name of the testatrix. It seeks no injunction against the use of her name. Upon the face of the bill the defendant is not using the name of ‘Henrietta Burden.’ The specific complaint of the plaintiff is that the defendant is using the name ‘Burden’ with intent to...