Opinion
08-23-1932
PEERLESS LAUNDRY CO., Inc. v. PEERLESS SERVICE LAUNDRY, Inc.
Wolber, Gilhooly & Yauch, of Newark, for complainant. Green & Green, of Newark, for defendant.
Syllabus by the Court.
To prevent unfair competition by a corporation rightfully using its name, which is similar to that of the complaining company, and which tends to confuse the buying public, the newcomer will be compelled to identify itself in a distinctive manner as not the complaining company.
Suit by the Peerless Laundry Company, Inc., against the Peerless Service Laundry, Inc.
Decree in favor of the complainant.
Wolber, Gilhooly & Yauch, of Newark, for complainant.
Green & Green, of Newark, for defendant.
BACKES, Vice Chancellor.
The complainant, Peerless Laundry, Inc., was incorporated in 1920, and has since built up an extensive trade in Newark and vicinity. Its business address is 442 Elizabeth avenue, Newark. In 1924 Isaac A. Pack, president of the defendant company, purchased the business of the Peerless Laundry Company of Belmar, a trade-name used by the previous owner since 1910. In 1929 he bought the Service Laundry Company, Asbury Park, also a trade-name, and thereafter conducted the two as one under the name of Peerless Service Laundry Company. In 1931 he incorporated the business, adopting the name Peerless Service Laundry, Inc. Up to that time the business had been confined to the shore towns of Monmouth county. In September the Peerless Service Laundry, Inc., opened a branch at 71 Elizabeth avenue, Newark, and is bidding for the laundry trade in Newark, in competition with the complainant. It has established routes in the city, traveled by trucks, and the canvass for business is sharp; trade is also carried on by telephone.
The defendant! has the right to use its corporate title; it represents a well-established business which it purchased, and no legal objection could be found to the use of the name so long as it confined its activities to the shore towns. National Grocery Company v. National Stores Corp., 95 N. J. Eq. 588, 123 A. 740. The laundry business is no longer local to the plant; the automobile has changed that. But, when the defendant entered the Newark field in competition with the complainant, which, undoubtedly, it had the right to do, it was in duty bound to see to it that its name, so similar to that of the complainant, would not lead to confusion in the purchasing public mind that the business of the defendant was that of the complainant thereby diverting the complainant's trade—the trade which would ordinarily stay with it or come to it by reason of its reputation or that which it solicited and acquired in fair competition. It was the defendant's duty to make the distinction clear. The additional word "Service" in its title does not distinguish; all laundry companies are "Service" companies. Confusion has already been experienced, and it is obvious that more will come endless ly.
The defendant is not to be denied the use of its name, honestly acquired and not dishonestly used, but it must identify itself as being the Belmar concern by the prefix "Belmar, N. J.," to its name as conspicuously as its title in whatever manner or form it may be displayed in the territory in which the complainant is now or here after may be operating.
Submit decree.