General Signal Corp. v. General Railway Signal Co.

231 N.E.2d 568, 353 Mass. 752, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 998
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 30, 1967
StatusPublished

This text of 231 N.E.2d 568 (General Signal Corp. v. General Railway Signal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Signal Corp. v. General Railway Signal Co., 231 N.E.2d 568, 353 Mass. 752, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 998 (Mass. 1967).

Opinion

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant from using the name “General Signal Corporation” or “General Signal Company.” The trial judge made findings of fact and ordered the entry of a decree dismissing the bill and reported the case. A transcript of the evidence and the exhibits are before us. The somewhat extensive findings of the judge show that the defendant is a New York corporation organized under the name of “General Railway Signal Company” in 1904 and registered in Massachusetts in 1946. It has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 1924. In 1963 it changed its name to “General Signal Corporation.” The plaintiff is a Massachusetts corporation organized in 1945 under the name of “FiResearch Corporation.” It was registered only in Massachusetts. “It did a small amount of business, mostly in Massachusetts, with some sales in other states. In January of 1956 it changed its name to General Signal Corporation.” The defendant “operates throughout the United States and overseas through ‘various autonomous subsidiaries,’ with total sales in 1964 in excess of $57,000,000. The plaintiff’s total sales reached its highest point in 1964 to an amount of $63,486.50. The plaintiff’s capital is relatively small.” The [753]*753judge concluded that the name “ ‘General Signal Corporation’ has not acquired a secondary meaning in the industry as specifically indicating the plaintiffs products.” Our review of the evidence and our examination of the exhibits satisfy us that the judge was right. Fulton v. Belmont, 333 Mass. 64, 65. See Sears v. Sears, 344 Mass. 755. A decree is to enter dismissing the bill.

Joseph J. Hurley (Martin W. Cohen with him) for the plaintiff. Charles C. Worth (John F. Groden with him) for the defendant.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fulton v. Town of Belmont
127 N.E.2d 569 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
Sears v. Sears
183 N.E.2d 103 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
231 N.E.2d 568, 353 Mass. 752, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-signal-corp-v-general-railway-signal-co-mass-1967.