AUGUST L. FRANKE AND MARIE V. FRANKE, DOING BUSINESS AS Q. W. LABORATORIES, PLAINTIFFIS-APPELLEES,
v.
WILLIAM WILTSCHEK, ARMAND BLATT AND WILLIAM WILTSCHEK AND ARMAND BLATT, DOING BUSINESS AS W. B. ASSOCIATES, DOING BUSINESS AS JO LANE SALES COMPANY, AND DOING BUSINESS AS FACELETTES COMPANY (NOT INCORPORATED), DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND BETTI PEARSON, INC., DEFENDANT

2d Cir. | 1957-05-28
Nos. 257, Docket 24423
Before HINCKS, STEWART and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges., HINCKS, J., concurs in the result.
245 F.2d 302 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1957)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the district court's judgment holding individuals and the corporation jointly and severally liable for profits from unfair competition was correct.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued William Wiltschek, Armand Blatt, and Betti Pearson, Inc. for unfair competition regarding the manufacture and sale of 'Facelettes'. Th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the propriety of a judgment of the district court against William Wiltschek and Armand Blatt individually for profits accruing from the manufacture and sale of compressed facecloths in the form of hard cylinders, known as Facelettes, in an action where the two individuals and Betti Pearson, Inc. were found guilty of unfair competition. The amount of the profits is not in dispute.

The history of this case, which includes a decision of this court reported under the same title in 1955, 209 F. 2d 493, and the proceedings leading up to Judge Edelstein’s order of September 4, 1956, lead us to conclude that the order and judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

After a trial of the issues in 1953 before Judge Clancy, he entered a decree which provided in part as follows:

“That plaintiffs recover as damages from defendants William Wiltschek, Armand Blatt, individually and doing business as W. B. Associates, * * * and defendant Bet-ti Pearson, Inc. all profits accruing from defendants’ manufacture and sale of ‘Facelettes’ and similar compressed face cloths in the form of hard cylinders * * * ” [Emphasis added.]

The decree also named a Special Master to take and study an accounting of such profits.

It is clear that Judge Clancy decided that each of the three defendants, William Wiltschek, Armand Blatt and Betti Pearson, Inc. was liable for all of the profits made and sold through the corporation or otherwise by these individual defendants. Judge Clancy had found that Wiltschek and Blatt were directors and vice-presidents and their wives were owners of half the issued stock of Betti Pearson, Inc., 115 F.Supp. 28. We affirmed that decision, 1955, 209 F. 2d 493, and the question of individual liability is thus settled. It cannot be reopened in the subsequent proceedings which were solely for the purpose of determining the amount of the damages.

Judge Edelstein’s order holding the individual defendants and Betti Pearson, Inc. “ * * * jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs * * * ” for the profits as damages, and directing judgment therefor against the three defendants is thus clearly correct.

It follows from this that it was proper for Judge Edelstein to direct the three defendants to reimburse the appellee for the Special Master’s fee of $1,500. This was a necessary and reasonable expense incurred in order to determine the profits.

Affirmed.

HINCKS, J., concurs in the result.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw