Wright Restaurant Co. v. Wright

Citations

• 74 Wash. 230
• 133 P. 464
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2025

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Decision—Law of Case. Where, in a former appeal of an action to restrain the use of “Chauncy Wright’s Cafe” as a trade-name, the supreme court held sufficient on demurrer a complaint alleging an agreement that such trade-name should be used by a partnership, and later by a corporation organized by the partners, but that Mr. Wright might reenter business using his own name with such precautions as to prevent unnecessary confusion, and on a subsequent trial on the merits, the evidence was to the effect that no such agreement was made but that the partnership and corporation were to be run under the name of “Wright Restaurant Company,” the facts do not support the allegations of the complaint, and the case is not within the rule announced in the prior decision.</p> <p>Trade-Marks and Trade-Names — Unfair Competition — Agreements. Where a restaurateur having a long established business under the name of “Chauncy Wright’s Cafe,” took in a partner and they formed a corporation and did business under the name “Wright Restaurant Company,” it is not unfair competition that Mr. Wright, after sale of his interest in the corporation, should reenter business in the same locality using his full name on the window, to the injury of the business of the corporation, where there had been no agreement that he should not reenter business or that the partnership or corporation should do business under the name “Chauncy Wright’s Cafe,” but the corporation had agreed to do business under its corporate name of “Wright Restaurant Company.”</p>