Opinion ID: 1475663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Effect of Advertising

Text: The amount of advertising that the senior appropriator has given to his trade name is another element that the courts will take into consideration in determining whether he is entitled to redress against a junior appropriator. In Lady Esther, Limited, v. Flanzbaum, supra, D.C., 44 F.Supp. at pages 668, 669, the court carefully itemized the advertising outlay of the complainant, and found that it totaled more than a million dollars a year for six years. In granting the complainant an injunction, the court observed: The trade name `Lady Esther' is fanciful. The complainant has spent large sums of money in advertising to build up goodwill and to make its trade-name and products known to the purchasing public. The complainant used the trade-name for about twenty-nine years before the respondent adopted it in his business. Assuming that the respondent adopted the trade-name `Lady Esther' because, as his son testified, it was the nickname of his son's wife and the adoption was made in good faith, I do not believe that it can be charged to coincidence that the respondent adopted practically the same script on his advertising signs and on his products as the complainant used in its trade-mark on its products. [7] The name Stork Club has acquired its high publicity value not because of its inherent felicity but as a result of the high-powered promotional methods of the New York café. The value of the designation is wholly adventitious, brought about by continued, expensive, and spectacular advertising  such as the giving away of one thousand dollar bills. The conclusion is inescapable that the appellees are seeking to capitalize on the publicity that the appellant has built around the name.