Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/312/312mass512.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:07:40+00:00

Document:
CAIN'S LOBSTER HOUSE, INC. vs. MERLE V. CAIN.
A retail business in sea foods carried on by the plaintiff in a store in conjunction with a restaurant under the trade name "Cain's," which had acquired a secondary meaning to the public as indicating such business, was unlawfully interfered with by one of the name of Cain who subsequently established another retail store for the sale of the same foods in close proximity to the plaintiff's establishment, using on his store a sign containing that name, with the result that there was confusion of the two businesses among the public trading with the plaintiff; and the plaintiff was entitled to have Cain enjoined from so conducting his business as to cause such confusion.
An agreement by a stockholder of a corporation with one who purchased all its capital stock, that he would not engage in a business competing with that of the corporation, could not be enforced by it.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on April 9, 1941.
The defendant appealed from a final decree entered by order of Baker, J. In this court the case was submitted on briefs.
R. F. Barrett & W. J. Holbrook, for the defendant.
J. H. Brennan, for the plaintiff.
the name "Cain" in any manner calculated to mislead or deceive the public "in the business of selling sea food" and restraining him from carrying on a retail store for the sale of food, sea food, lobsters or crab meat in the town of Weymouth.
required to take such steps as may be necessary to eliminate such confusion. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall's Safe Co. 208 U.S. 554. Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids Manuf. Co. 233 U.S. 461. Andrew Jergens Co. v. Bonded Products Corp. 13 Fed. (2d) 417. Holland Furnace Co. v. New Holland Machine Co. 24 Fed. (2d) 751. Horlick's Malted Milk Corp. v. Horluck's, Inc. 59 Fed. (2d) 13. Gleaves v. W. B. Fishburn Co. 82 Fed. (2d) 627. John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co. Ltd. 85 Fed. (2d) 586. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson, 116 Fed. (2d) 427.
Here there is more involved than the mere use of his name by the defendant in the conduct of his business. It has been found that the defendant's sign and the proximity of his place of business to that of the plaintiff have caused confusion to those of the public who purchase goods of the kind offered for sale by the parties. The name "Cain's" had acquired a secondary meaning as indicating the plaintiff's place of business and it was entitled to have the defendant conduct his business in such a manner that it would not be confused with its business. Upon the facts found the defendant has wrongfully interfered with the plaintiff's retail trade. Loew's Boston Theatres Co. v. Lowe, 248 Mass. 456. General Fruit Stores, Inc. v. Markarian, 300 Mass. 90. Cardinal v. Taylor, 302 Mass. 220. Jackman v. Calvert-Distillers Corp. of Massachusetts, 306 Mass. 423. Blair's Foodland Inc. v. Shuman's Foodland, Inc. 311 Mass. 172.
The decree, however, permanently enjoined the defendant from conducting a retail store for the sale of food, sea food, lobsters or crab meat in the town of Weymouth. The plaintiff was not, in its own right, entitled to be free from any competition by the defendant. It could only complain, as we have already said, if it had been harmed by the actual or probable deception of the public by the defendant. Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Libby, 241 Mass. 239. John L. Whiting-J. J. Adams Co. v. Adams-White Brush Co. 260 Mass. 137. Tent, Inc. v. Burnham, 269 Mass. 211. Highland Dye Works, Inc. v. Anteblian, 270 Mass. 209. Schnare v. Evans, 301 Mass. 343.
that would compete with the plaintiff and that agreement has been properly found to have been a part of the transaction by which Wells purchased all the capital stock of the plaintiff. But this agreement was with Wells and not with the plaintiff. It was for the benefit of the corporation, but the latter furnished no consideration for the defendant's promise and it was not a party to the agreement between Wells and the defendant. The entire consideration moved from Wells. He is the only party, so far as appears from this record, that can enforce it. It is the general rule in this Commonwealth that no action can be maintained by a beneficiary who is not a party to the contract. Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co. v. Evatt Construction Co. 256 Mass. 404. Pike v. Anglo-South American Trust Co. 267 Mass. 130. Central Supply Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 273 Mass. 139. Exchange Realty Co. v. Bines, 302 Mass. 93. First National Bank of Boston v. Mathey, 308 Mass. 108.
The final decree is reversed and a new decree is to be entered enjoining the defendant from conducting the business of selling at retail lobsters, crab meat, and lobster and crab meat sandwiches, in a manner that it is reasonably probable will result in inducing purchasers using ordinary care to trade with him in the belief that the business is conducted by the plaintiff, the details of the decree to be settled in the Superior Court. The counterclaim filed by the defendant is unsupported by any findings by the judge and must be dismissed.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.