Court Opinion

ID: 9857077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:14:52.677187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:58.570874
License: Public Domain

WILSON, J.
I concur. It should be made clear that by reason of the rapid development of the law of unfair competition and of the judicial declaration of rules that are made applicable to new situations when and as they arise, any rule announced should be specifically limited in its application to the particular subject then in question.
General statements such as the following always lead to confusion. In Raladam Co. v. Federal Trade Com., 42 F.2d 430, 436, it is said that unfair competition cannot exist “unless there is competition, and there cannot be competition unless there is something to compete with.” In American Philatelic Society v. Clairbourne, 3 Cal.2d 689, 697 [46 P.2d *378135], the court said that “the essence of unfair competition lies in the simulation and imitation of the goods of a rival or competitor with the purpose of deceiving the unwary public into buying the imitation under the impression that it is purchasing the goods of such competitor.”
Conceding the accuracy of these statements as applied to the facts in the respective cases above cited, numerous decisions are to be found in the books in which unfair competition in the use of a name has been enjoined when one party was not selling his product in competition with that of another. If confusion is likely to result whereby the public would be led to believe that the merchandise produced or sold by one is produced or sold by another or that the producer or merchant first in the field is in some manner connected with the newcomer, an injunction will issue even though the products of the parties are wholly dissimilar and for that reason the sale of the newcomer’s article would not be in competition with or prevent the sale of the article produced or sold by the person first engaged in business.
Events have occurred and no doubt,others will occur hereafter rendering necessary the restraining hand of the court to thwart efforts to pirate the good will of established businesses by acts of unfair competition, although the business or commodity of the junior dealer is not in direct competition with that of the established operator.
Decisions limiting the injunctive process of the court to the restraining of competition by unfair means of the producer of one product with another’ producer of a similar product have been outmoded in the development and extension of the law within recent years so that acts are now enjoined that were not prohibited by or that were expressly sanctioned by former decisions.
Injunctions are no longer limited to situations in which there is actual market competition. The desiccated doctrine of L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 [35 S.Ct. 91, 59 L.Ed. 142], and Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall’s Safe Co., 208 U.S. 554 [28 S.Ct. 350, 52 L.Ed. 616], wherein a name similar to one previously in use was permitted to be used in the same kind of business provided the public was informed that the second user was not connected with the first, has been superseded by decisions sustaining injunctions prohibiting a junior user from appropriating or imitating an established name in connection with an article not at *379all similar to that manufactured or sold by the original user of the name and which is not competitive with the latter’s product. (Del Monte Special Food Co. v. California Packing Corp., (C.C.A. 9) 34 F.2d 774, 775; Akron-Overland Tire Co. v. Willys-Overland Co., (C.C.A. 3) 273 F. 674; Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc., (C.C.A. 3) 4 F.2d 333, 334; Duro Co. v. Duro Co., (C.C.A. 3) 27 F.2d 339; Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson, (C.C.A. 2) 26 F.2d 972, 974; Peninsular Chemical Co. v. Levinson, (C.C.A. 6) 247 F. 658, 661 [159 C.C.A. 560] ; Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson Co., (C.C.A. 6) 300 F. 509, 512; cert. den. 273 U.S. 706 [47 S.Ct. 98, 71 L.Ed. 850] ; Lady Esther, Ltd. v. Lady Esther Corset Shoppe, Inc., 317 Ill. App. 451 [46 N.E.2d 165, 167,148 A.L.R 6, 9] ; Ward Baking Co. v. Potter-Wrightington, (C.C.A. 1) 298 F. 398; Pennsylvania Storage Battery Co. v. Mindlin, 163 Misc. 52 [296 N.Y.S. 176,178-9] ; Finchley, Inc. v. Finchley Co., Inc., (D.C.) 40 F.2d 736, 738; American Products Co. v. American Products Co., (D.C.) 42 F.2d 488, 490; Armour & Co. v. Master Tire & Rubber Co., (D.C.) 34 F.2d 201, 202. See, also, cases cited in note, 148 A.L.R. 22.)
It is manifest from this discussion, sustained by the authorities cited, that unfair competition may be and frequently is present even though the commodities produced or sold by the two litigants are totally dissimilar. In other words, there may be unfair competition even in the absence of “something to compete with” and “the essence of unfair competition” does not always lie “in the simulation and imitation of the goods of a rival or competitor.”
A petition for a rehearing was denied July 8, 1948, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 19,1948.