Case Title: Fuqua v. Roberts

Citation: 110 So. 2d 886

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1959-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
110 So. 2d 886 (1959)
D. B. FUQUA
v.
Woodrow ROBERTS.
6 Div. 134.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 9, 1959.
*887 Earl Alford, Winfield, for appellant.
Fite & Fite, Hamilton, for appellee.
LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Alabama, in Equity, sustaining a demurrer to the amended bill of complaint. This appeal is here by virtue of § 755, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940.
The bill, in substance, alleges that the complainant is conducting an automobile sales business at Birmingham under the name and style of City Car Market, and has been conducting such business for five or more years. He further alleges that the respondent is now conducting a similar automobile sales business in Fayette, Alabama, under the name and style of The City Car Market, and that such a business was commenced in the year 1955. Paragraph 4 of the amended bill is as follows:
There is a prayer to enjoin the respondent from using the name "The City Car Market" and for general relief.
"It is a cardinal rule of equity pleading that a bill should show with certainty and clearness that the complainant has a right that warrants protection, and the respondent must be distinctly informed of the nature of the case which he is called upon to defend; otherwise it is subject to demurrer." Montgomery v. Drinkard Auto & Truck Co., 257 Ala. 685, 60 So. 2d 823, 825. But "the same precision of statement is not generally required in equity as at law, and the certainty with which averments must be made will depend on the particular case." Martin Stamping & Stove Co. v. Manley, 260 Ala. 112, 69 So. 2d 671, 681.
Courts of equity have liberally exercised their injunctive powers to prevent injury from the infringement of trade names wherever it appeared the name was established, distinctive and a valuable adjunct to a place of business. All that is necessary is to inform the court that the complainant's trade is in danger of harm from the use of its name by the respondent in such a manner as it is likely to deceive the public into the belief that the respondent's affairs, in the respect complained of, are those of the complainant. Try-Me Bottling Co. v. Teaver, 241 Ala. 266, 2 So. *888 2d 611; N. L. Pierce Nat. Detective Agency v. Pierce Detective Agency, 217 Ala. 594, 117 So. 191.
It is not necessary to show in a bill for injunctive relief only that any person or persons have been actually deceived. McVay & Son Seed Co. v. McVay Seed & Floral Co., 201 Ala. 644, 79 So. 116; Boston Shoe Shop v. McBroom Shoe Shop, 196 Ala. 262, 72 So. 102.
Appellant admits in brief that the businesses of complainant and respondent are approximately 100 miles apart.
Undoubtedly, the question of competition will arise upon trial, but complainant alleges that he has extensively advertised in Fayette County and has sold and expects to sell automobiles to the people of Fayette County. The fact that Birmingham, Alabama, and Fayette, Alabama, are different communities approximately 100 miles apart is not of controlling significance. Ball v. Best, C.C., 135 F. 434; Hub Clothing Co. of Wilkes-Barre v. Cohen, 270 Pa. 487, 113 A. 677.
In N. L. Pierce Nat. Detective Agency v. Pierce Detective Agency, supra [217 Ala. 594, 117 So. 191], this court said:
This court stated in Boston Shoe Shop v. McBroom Shoe Shop, 196 Ala. 262, 72 So. 102, 103:
* * * * * *
*889 "Nor is it necessary to show, in a bill for injunction merely, that any persons have been actually deceived. 38 Cyc. 773, and cases cited."
This court, in the case of G. B. McVay & Son Seed Co., Inc., v. McVay Seed & Floral Co., Inc., supra [201 Ala. 644, 79 So. 119], stated:
In Try-Me Bottling Co. v. Teaver, 241 Ala. 266, 2 So. 2d 611, 615, this court said:
It is said in 87 C.J.S. Trade-Marks, etc. § 30 P. 265, that:
And in 87 C.J.S. Trade-Marks, etc. § 33 P. 268, it is said:
In the case of Cape May Yacht Club v. Cape May Yacht & Country Club, 81 N.J. Eq. 454, 86 A. 972, 973, it is said:
Although the bill of complaint is not the epitome of legal draftsmanship, we think it sufficiently shows an equitable cause of action and it was error to sustain the demurrer.
Reversed and remanded.
SIMPSON, GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.