Opinion
04-17-1899
GLUCOSE SUGAR REPINING CO. v. AMERICAN GLUCOSE SUGAR REFINING CO.
James B. Vredenburgh, for complainant.
Bill by the Glucose Sugar Refining Company against the American Glucose Sugar Refining Company to obtain an injunction. Decree advised for complainant.
James B. Vredenburgh, for complainant.
PITNEY, V. C. The complainant, the Glucose Sugar Refining Company, was organized under the general corporation law of New Jersey August 2, 1897. The defendant, the American Glucose Sugar Refining Company, was organized under the same law September 15, 1897. The complaint is that the name assumed by the defendant is so similar to the name already in use by the complainant that it has led and will lead to uncertainty and confusion, and that the business of the complainant will be diverted and the public deceived on account of it. The relief sought is an injunction restraining the defendant from using the name adopted by it. The complainant bases its right to relief on two grounds, which support each other: First, the eighth section of the corporation act (Laws 1896, p. 280, c. 185), which provides that "no name shall be assumed" by a corporation which is "already in use by another existing corporation of this state, or so nearly similar thereto as to lead to uncertainty and confusion"; second, upon the inequitable conduct of the defendant in assuming the name of the complainant. I think both grounds are well taken. The names are so nearly similar as to lead to uncertainty and confusion, and hence its use by the junior corporation is forbidden by the act. I think the complainant's case is also made out without the aid of the statute. The proofs show that the words "Glucose Sugar" do not describe any article of commerce. So that the complainant is not open to the charge of incorporating in its name a collocation of words in common use, such as "pig iron," "wrought iron," or the like. In the absence of that quality, the cases seem to be clear that a corporation which adopts a name in good faith acquires a right to its use which another corporation may not appropriate. Several cases on this subject will be found collected in Union Water Co. v. Kean, 52 N. J. Eq. 111, 130, 27 Atl. 1015. Of those I refer only to Holmes v. Holmes Co., 37 Conn. 278, 9 Am. Rep. 324, and Hendricks v. Montague (1881) L. R. 17 Ch. Div. 638.
I will advise an injunction according to the prayer in the bill.