## Facts

- Plaintiff manufactured and sold tea identified in the market as “Black Package Tea,” packaged in a distinctive black wrapper with specific labels and overall get-up.
- The tea was sold largely to illiterate customers and often in poorly lit shops, where purchasers relied on the package’s general appearance rather than reading text.
- Defendant, a competitor, sold an inferior tea in packaging alleged to be nearly identical in form, color, and overall appearance to plaintiff’s packaging.
- Defendant sold his tea to customers who specifically requested plaintiff’s “Black Package Tea.”
- Defendant’s name appeared on his wrapper, but plaintiff claimed this did not prevent deception under the actual purchasing conditions.
- Plaintiff sought an injunction barring defendant from using the confusingly similar package and from using the designation “Black Package Tea” for tea not marketed by plaintiff; damages were also sought.

## Issues

1. Whether a seller who has built goodwill in goods identified by distinctive packaging may obtain injunctive relief against a competitor using substantially similar packaging likely to mislead ordinary purchasers under actual market conditions.
2. Whether unfair competition relief may be granted even absent a technical trademark infringement when the overall get-up is deceptively similar.
3. Whether a competitor may be restrained from using the designation “Black Package Tea” for tea not selected and marketed by plaintiff.

## Decision

- The General Term affirmed judgment for plaintiff.
- The court upheld an injunction restraining defendant from using the form of package adopted by plaintiff where the similarity in appearance was likely to mislead purchasers.
- The court also upheld an injunction restraining defendant from using the name “Black Package Tea” in selling tea not selected and put on the market by plaintiff.
- The relief was grounded in unfair competition principles directed at preventing deceptive substitution and diversion of plaintiff’s trade.

## Legal Principles

- Unfair competition may be shown by imitation of a product’s overall packaging appearance (trade dress) when it is likely to deceive ordinary purchasers under the conditions in which sales occur.
- The presence of nonidentical markings or the defendant’s name on the package does not preclude relief if the overall get-up is sufficiently similar to cause likely deception, particularly where purchasers rely on visual appearance rather than text.
- A trade designation associated with a seller’s goods may be protected against use by a competitor in a manner that misrepresents the source of goods and diverts the seller’s goodwill.
- Injunctive relief may be tailored to prohibit use of the specific deceptive package form and the specific misleading designation, rather than granting control over packaging generally.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed injunctive relief against a competitor who marketed inferior tea in packaging closely resembling the plaintiff’s distinctive “Black Package Tea” get-up and used the same designation in a way likely to mislead purchasers, constituting unfair competition despite the absence of a technical trademark claim.


Fischer v. Blank, 64 Hun 635, 19 N.Y.S. 65 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Gen. Term 1892)