Source: http://openjurist.org/434/f2d/794
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 15:10:51
Document Index: 205533328

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 14330', '§ 221', '§ 729', '§ 14330', '§ 84']

434 F2d 794 Carter-Wallace Inc v. Procter & Gamble Company | OpenJurist
434 F. 2d 794 - Carter-Wallace Inc v. Procter & Gamble Company HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 434 F.2d.
434 F2d 794 Carter-Wallace Inc v. Procter & Gamble Company 434 F.2d 794
CARTER-WALLACE, INC., a corporation, Appellant,v.The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, The Procter & Gamble Distributing Company, the Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, A. B. C. Market Corp., and Oliver Drug Company, corporations, Appellees.
Warren L. Kern, Richard A. Wallen, of Harris, Kiech, Russell & Kern, Los Angeles, Cal., Louis Kunin, and V. T. Giordano, of Von Maltitz, Derenberg, Kunin & Janssen, New York City, for appellant.
Richard E. Sherwood, Ralph W. Dau of O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., Thomas S. Calder and John E. McDowell, of Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates & Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellees.
Before HAMLEY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and LEVIN,* District Judge.
This is an action for unfair competition and common law trademark infringement arising from defendant's1 alleged infringement of plaintiff's2 personal deodorant slogan, "Use ARRID * * * To Be Sure" and its variant, "To Be Sure," used in connection with plaintiff's advertising of its personal deodorant under the trademark ARRID.
Plaintiff's Amended and Supplemental Complaint sought to enjoin defendant from marketing a personal deodorant under an allegedly confusingly similar trademark, SURE. Jurisdiction of the District Court was based on diversity of citizenship (28 U.S.C. § 1332) and was not contested below.
Lexicon federally registered the trademark SURE based on an application filed in February, 1957. The application was published for opposition in April, 1958. Plaintiff did not oppose this application, but an opposition was instituted by McKesson & Robbins, Inc. Lexicon prevailed before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and its registration was issued March 28, 1961.
In 1963 defendant was asked to sell its trademark CONTACT to Smith, Kline & French, Inc., which was marketing cold remedies under the mark CONTAC. After negotiation, defendant agreed to exchange its CONTACT mark for the SURE mark if it could be obtained from Lexicon. Smith, Kline & French, Inc., acting through an intermediary, arranged for the acquisition of the SURE mark from Lexicon. On February 25, 1964, Lexicon assigned its rights and federal registration of SURE to defendant (Prior to that date, Lexicon was not aware that defendant was the intended assignee.)
Based on the above Findings of Fact, the District Court judge concluded that the slogans and combinations of words relied on by plaintiff are common descriptive words and hence not protectable as trademarks since there was no proof of secondary meaning prior to the showing in 1953 of the use of SURE by the predecessor of defendant. The District Court judge also concluded that defendant had not abandoned the mark SURE and that even if plaintiff did own legally protectable trademark rights in any of the words relied upon, there was no likelihood of consumer confusion as to the origin of SURE and any product of plaintiff's. Finally, the District Court judge concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to any relief under the California "Anti-Dilution" Statute (Cal.Bus. & P.Code, § 14330) or under common law dilution theories; that plaintiff's delay in asserting its rights herein constituted laches; and that the mark SURE has been and is infringed by plaintiff's use of the trademark SAFE'N SURE; and that defendant has not been guilty of any unfair competition.
Before turning to a discussion of the issues, it may be noted at the outset that the parties are in disagreement over this court's function on review of this type of case. Plaintiff argues that the questions involved here are solely of law and that this court is therefore free to decide such questions de novo. Defendant counters that this is a "fact" case under which the "clearly erroneous" standard of F. R.Civ.P. Rule 52(a) controls.
Where there is no dispute as to the facts and the issue of confusing similarity is based solely upon a comparison of the trademarks themselves, this court is in a position equally as good as the trial court to decide the issues. Friend v. H. A. Friend and Company, 416 F.2d 526, 531 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 397 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 916, 25 L.Ed.2d 94 (1970); Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Company, 314 F.2d 149, 152 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. den., 374 U.S. 830, 83 S.Ct. 1870, 10 L.Ed.2d 1053 (1963). In the circumstances present here, however, the facts are in dispute, and therefore the district court's determination of lack of confusing similarity as to the source of defendant's SURE deodorant must stand unless clearly erroneous. Paul Sachs Originals Co. v. Sachs, 325 F.2d 212, 214 (9th Cir. 1963).
A descriptive term may be entitled to protection if it is closely identified with the goods of one particular producer or has otherwise gained public recognition. Bristol-Myers Co. v. Approved Pharmaceutical Corp., 149 U.S. P.Q. 896 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.Spec.T. 1966) (restrained deliberate infringement of EXCEDRIN'S phrase, "Extra Strength Pain Reliever"). Purely descriptive terms, however, are not so protected. See, e. g., Kellogg Co. v. Nat. Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 118, 59 S.Ct. 109, 83 L.Ed. 73 (1938) ("shredded wheat"); Application of Helena Rubinstein, Inc., 410 F.2d 438, 441, 56 CCPA (1969) ("pasteurized"); Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Company, 299 F.2d 855, 862, 49 CCPA (1963) ("sudsy ammonia"); but cf. Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d 823 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1970) (affirming dismissal of opposition to registration of slogan, "Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser Knows For Sure" where court found such phrase to be more than merely descriptive).
Numerous factors can and often do play a role in the determination of likelihood of confusion in a trademark infringement case. Such factors include visual, verbal and intellective similarity; the class of goods in question; the marketing channels; the intent of defendant; evidence of actual confusion; and the strength or weakness of the marks in question. K-S-H Plastics, Inc. v. Carolite, Inc., 408 F.2d 54, 57 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 825, 90 S.Ct. 69, 24 L.Ed. 76 (1969); Pikle-Rite Company v. Chicago Pickle Co., 171 F.Supp. 671, 675 (N.D.Ill.1959); Syntex Laboratories, Inc. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 315 F.Supp. 45, 49 (S.D.N.Y.1970).
Plaintiff relies heavily on its long and substantial advertising expenditures vis-a-vis the minimal advertising by defendant as a factor in its favor. While such relative advertising expenditure is an additional factor to be considered, Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Allstates Trailer Rental, Inc., 188 F.Supp. 170, 177 (D.Md.1960), it is not dispositive, for a "large expenditure of money does not in itself create legally protectable rights." Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F. 2d 562, 568 (9th Cir. 1968).
In A. Stein & Co. v. S. & L. Belt Co., Inc., 89 U.S.P.Q. 35 (Exmr. in Chief 1951), the Patent Office Examiner refused registration of "Topps" for belts after finding it confusingly similar to plaintiff's "Tops for Your Trousers" slogan used exclusively with its "Paris" brand belts. Apart from the authority and correctness of this decision, it is sufficiently distinguishable from the instant case not to be determinative, particularly since the issue of likelihood of confusion was not there argued.
Very few of the cases relied on by plaintiff present the situation where just one word from a multi-word slogan is allegedly appropriated. Certainly a trademark infringer need not expropriate the entire mark of another to be guilty of an enjoinable offense if the imitation is of the most salient feature of the mark in question. Pikle-Rite Company, supra, 171 F.Supp. at 675; 1 Nims, Unfair Competition and Trademarks § 221f at 679 (4th ed. 1947). Here, however, the word "sure" is a common word and cannot be reasonably dissociated from the whole slogan as used by plaintiff in order to determine that it is salient.
Any such determination made by the Patent Office under the circumstances just noted must be regarded as inconclusive since made at its lowest administrative level and in light of the inconsistent position taken by plaintiff. See R. G. Barry Corporation v. A. Sandler Co., 406 F.2d 114, 116 (1st Cir. 1969). The determination by the Patent Office is rendered less persuasive still by the fact that the Patent Office did not have before it the great mass of evidence which the parties have since presented to both the District Court and this court in support of their claims.
A second consideration in determining whether plaintiff's slogans are being infringed here is whether such slogans have attained secondary meaning, a necessary element here since the slogans cannot be regarded as distinctive or fanciful. K-S-H Plastics, supra, 408 F. 2d at 58.
Another factor militating against a finding of secondary meaning in plaintiff's slogans is their lack of exclusivity, i. e., other deodorant and kindred products have also utilized the term "sure" in connection with their advertising. See Restatement of Torts, First, § 729, Comment g (1938). Some examples of third party uses here are:
Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action in its Amended and Supplemental Complaint was brought under both the common law doctrine of trademark dilution and the California "Anti-Dilution" statute (Cal.Bus. & P.Code, § 14330).
The law regarding the dilution doctrine is not altogether clear and cannot be readily summarized except to say that it is an offshoot of the equitable considerations inherent in the concept of unfair competition. See discussion in 3 Callmann § 84.2 at 953-64. It is not settled, e. g., whether the doctrine of dilution broadens protection against unfair competition by dispensing with the need for showing likelihood of confusion. (At least one case has found that it does. See Polaroid Corporation v. Polaraid, Inc., 319 F.2d 830, 837 (7th Cir. 1963).
Here, even assuming the doctrine of dilution applicable, the District Court found that plaintiff's slogans were not sufficiently distinctive to be entitled to protection from alleged dilution. No cases have afforded protection under the California statute in circumstances such as that before us now,3 and this court agrees with the District Court in concluding that plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any theory of dilution.
Although there is some support in the cases for not finding laches under the circumstances present here,4 the District Court's findings on which its conclusion was based cannot be said to be clearly erroneous, and accordingly we accept as well the District Court's conclusion regarding laches, although we do not rest the instant decision on that ground alone.
Plaintiff's final claim is that defendant abandoned its rights to SURE because defendant made only nominal "semi-mechanical" sales thereof with the sole intent of sustaining the mark. As the discussion above indicates, however, defendant proferred legitimate business reasons for its action, which reasons the District Court found sufficient to support a conclusion of no abandonment and with which we are in agreement. Even a single instance of use is sufficient against a claim of abandonment of a mark if such use is made in good faith. Mendes v. New England Duplicating Co., 94 F.Supp. 558, 560 (D.Mass.1950), aff'd., 190 F.2d 415 (1st Cir. 1951).
As used herein, the term "defendant" indicates primarily the principal defendant-appellee, The Procter & Gamble Company. Where the context requires, this term also denotes the other defendants-appellees
As used herein, the term "plaintiff" indicates the plaintiff-appellant, Carter-Wallace, Inc. (a Delaware corporation), and where the context requires, its predecessor, Carter-Wallace, Inc. (a Maryland corporation), formerly known as Carter Products, Inc
At least one district court has refrained from giving the California statute an overly broad reading "lest it swallow up all competition in the claim of protection against trade name infringement." Coffee Dan's, Inc. v. Coffee Don's Charcoal Broiler, 305 F.Supp. 1210, 1217 n. 13 (D.C.1969)
It is fundamental that laches is not the mere passage of time, but requires instead detrimental reliance. Stork Restaurant v. Sahati, 166 F.2d 348, 363 (9th Cir. 1948); Layton Pure Food Co. v. Church & Dwight Co., 182 F. 24, 33 (8th Cir. 1910). Furthermore, no laches will be found where the defendant's interference with plaintiff's rights is minimal or inconsequential. Devlin v. McLeod, 135 F. 164, 167 (W.D.N.Y.1904); Rahtjen's American Comp. Co. v. Holzappel's Comp. Co., 101 F. 257, 262 (2d Cir. 1900), rev'd. on other grounds, 183 U.S. 1, 22 S.Ct. 6, 46 L.Ed. 49 (1901)See also G. D. Searle & Company v. MDX Purity Pharmacies, Inc., 275 F.Supp. 524, 532-33 (C.D.Cal.1967). Similarly, there is no laches where the defendant's encroachment is steady but slow. O. & W. Thum Co. v. Dickinson, 245 F. 609, 623 (6th Cir. 1917.