Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/253/720/145554/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:04:31+00:00

Document:
Lyon & Lyon, R. Douglas Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Elliott & Pastoriza, Santa Monica, Cal., Adelbert Schapp, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.
Appellee sued appellants below and recovered damages and attorneys' fees for infringement of and unfair competition with appellee's Registered Trade-Mark No. 377,752, dated May 11, 1940. Jurisdiction was in the lower court. 15 U.S. C.A. § 22. This Court has jurisdiction of the timely appeal. 28 U.S.C § 1291.
The trade-mark in question consists of the words "Wonder Chair," (with a disclaimer as to the word "Chair" apart from the mark) as applied to "Reclining Chairs and Convertible Chair Beds" in Class 32, Furniture and Upholstery.
The Conclusion of the District Court was that appellee's trade-mark was valid, and infringed by appellants.
Appellants object to the Findings and Conclusions hereinabove mentioned, and to (a) the injunction granted; (b) the damages of $1000.00 awarded; and (c) the attorneys' fees of $500.00 awarded.
Since our determination on the question of infringement is dispositive of this appeal, we find no occasion to pass upon the propriety of the finding below that appellee's trade-mark was valid. We, therefore, refrain from consideration of the validity of the trade-mark sued upon.
The primary question, then, is whether the appellant has in any way infringed the trade-mark claimed by appellee. We understand that there are three tests readily applied to any trademark to determine if there has been "identification."
(1) Is there similarity of sound?
(2) Is there similarity of sight?
(3) Is there similarity of meaning?
Let us examine the respective marks actually used by the parties. Appellee trade-marked the words "Wonder Chair." It most frequently, though not always, used the words "Bell's Wonder Chair" (Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 19), or, "Bell Wonder Chair — (not a bed)" (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6), or, "The Bell Wonder Chair-Bed" (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9), or, "Wonder Love Seat" (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9), or, "Wonder Cushioned Divan" (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9).
Appellants used the words "Sleeper Lounge, The Wonder Bed" (Plaintiff's Exhibits 13 to 18, incl.; Defendants' Exhibits B and E), or, "Electrical Wonder Bed" (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 20), although, originally it used merely "Sleeper Lounge Bed" (Defendants' Exhibits A, F, G, H, and J), or, "Sleeper Lounge."
But we have seen appellants have not used simply "Wonder Bed," but "Sleeper Lounge, The Wonder Bed" while appellee has used not simply "Wonder Chair," but "Bell's Wonder Chair."
Since the trial court rested its finding of infringement primarily on the similarity of meaning between the trade-marks, "Bell's Wonder Chair" and "Sleeper Lounge, The Wonder Bed," we are "in as good a position as the trial judge to determine the probability of confusion." Miles Shoes, Inc., v. R. H. Macy & Co., 2 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 602, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 909, 73 S. Ct. 650, 97 L. Ed. 1345; Warner Brothers Co. v. Jantzen, 2 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 353, 355 (dissent).
"* * * It also follows that while extrinsic facts are significant, the likelihood of confusion may as readily be perceived by a reviewing court upon visual comparison as by a court of first instance, unless extrinsic facts compel determination one way or the other."
See, also, Best & Co. v. Miller, 2 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 374; California Fruit Growers Exchange v. Sunkist Baking Co., 7 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 971.
Appellee manufactured a chair capable of assuming the position and appearance of a bed; appellants manufactured only beds, incapable of assuming the position or appearance of a chair. In using either product, an occupant could so arrange the piece of furniture that he could "lounge" in it. Appellee's chair was sold for, and as, a bed, but appellants' bed was not sold for, or as, a chair.
We can find no evidence of confusion in the record, nor any evidence of likelihood of confusion.
We find no infringement. Judson-Dunaway Corp. v. Hygienic Products, 1 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 461; 3 Callmann, Unfair Comp. and Trade-Marks (2nd Ed. 1950).
No actual damages were proved at the trial. No loss of business was proved. There was no showing of fraud or palming off. Good faith is a defense. So is the de minimis rule. Had there been infringement here, injunctive provisions would have satisfied all the equities of the case. Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 1900, 179 U.S. 42, 21 S. Ct. 16, 45 L. Ed. 77; Golden West Brewing Co. v. Milonas & Sons, 9 Cir., 1939, 104 F.2d 880, 882.
The statute authorizing recovery of damages does not require such an award in every case.
In view of our conclusion of lack of infringement, there can be no damages awarded.
We find no authority for the award of attorneys' fees in this case, even had there been infringement. None has been cited to us. There was no basis proved for punitive damages. Perhaps some day Callmann's suggestion and advice will be incorporated into statute or judicial legislation.5 We will not do so here, for this is not the case, factually, in which to innovate.
The judgment is reversed, with instructions to the lower court to enter a decree establishing the validity of the mark; that there has been no violation thereof; with no damages awarded, and no attorneys' fees in the lower court.

References: § 22
 § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.