Temple v. Gordon

CONREY, P. J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order dissolving a restraining order and denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The application for the order was heard upon the complaint, and affidavits produced on both sides.

For about two years prior to defendant’s acts of which the plaintiff complains plaintiff was engaged in manufacturing and selling a certain kind of bread, to which he gave the name of “Faultless” bread. In June, 1913, he caused to be registered as belonging to him the trademark and trade name “Faultless” as applied to that product, and obtained a certificate thereof from the Secretary of State of the state of California. In selling his bread thereafter he was accustomed to have each loaf wrapped in a certain kind of paper upon which was printed:

“FAULTLESS BREAD MADE BY OCCIDENTAL BAKERY Brdy. 4770 Los Angeles A-5020.”

These words and figures were printed in dark blue ink in a certain distinctive form. He advertised extensively his product under said trade name and built up a valuable business in the sale of the described bread. The plaintiff charged that thereafter the defendant, with intent to deceive and defraud the public and to injure and defraud the plaintiff, caused to be put up in similar packages a kind of bread sold by him, copying the general design, color of ink, etc., and

[129]

caused the bread to be sold in a nearly similar wrapper to that of the plaintiff, on which he placed the following printed matter:

“PEERLESS PURITY QUALITY PEERLESS BREAD MADE BY GORDON BREAD CO. South 4797 Los Angeles.”

Samples of these wrappers are attached as exhibits to the complaint and are found in the transcript on appeal. The affidavits which accompanied the complaint were made by drivers of bread wagons for the plaintiff and contain statements of fact tending to show a similarity in appearance of the articles as placed on the market by the defendant to those sold by the plaintiff; tending also to show that some persons were deceived thereby, and that the bread sold by the defendant was inferior in weight and quality, but that nevertheless it was •competing successfully with plaintiff’s bread in the various establishments where bread was sold in the city of Los Angeles, and that plaintiff’s business was being injured thereby. In response to the order to show cause the defendant presented to the court affidavits of himself and of several drivers of his delivery wagons and of several grocers who had been selling bread purchased from the plaintiff as well as from the defendant. The defendant denied many of the important allegations of the complaint. Among other things, the defendant stated in his affidavit and the accompanying affidavits stated matters tending to show that it was not true that by reason of close similarity of the names “Faultless” and “Peerless,” or of the wrappers and packages as sold by the defendant, the public could be or was misled or imposed upon; that the defendant had been engaged in the manufacture and selling of bread in the city of Los Angeles for at least five years prior to the commencement of this action; that the wrappers used by him did not nor did he intend by them to imitate the plaintiff’s trademark or label.