Opinion ID: 1185970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: trade-name infringement

Text: Plains Tire and Battery Company contends that the trial judge's decision is clearly erroneous because it is not supported by the evidence. The question of trade-name infringement is largely one of fact, Wyoming National Bank of Casper v. Security Bank & Trust Co., Wyo., 572 P.2d 1120, 1125 (1977), and as we have often reiterated, questions of fact are to be determined by the trier of fact. We will not substitute our view of the facts for that of the trier of fact, and findings will only be set aside upon appeal if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight of evidence. Kvenild v. Taylor, Wyo., 594 P.2d 972, 976 (1979). Even if there are no specific findings of fact, a judgment carries with it every finding of fact supporting the successful party that can be reasonably and fairly drawn from the evidence. Kvenild, supra, 594 P.2d at 976. In Safeway Stores v. Rudner, 9 Cir., 246 F.2d 826 (1957), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision denying plaintiff's request for an injunction enjoining defendant from using the trade-name Safeway. The appellate court found: The evidence showed that, when the action was brought and at all times thereafter, there was a likelihood  a probability, if not a certainty  that, unless enjoined, appellee's use of the trade name `Safeway' would greatly and irreparably damage appellant. That showing was sufficient to entitle appellant to injunctive relief. Safeway Stores, supra, 246 F.2d at 830. While we are always reluctant to set aside a trial court's judgment where the question presented requires a factual determination, this reluctance does not prevent such action if we find little or no evidence to support the judgment. Kvenild, supra, 594 P.2d at 976. We agree with appellant. There is no evidence in the record to support the trial court's judgment. Trade names and trademarks used in connection with a service or product over time create a commercial magnetism, and the law protects this psychological effect. The controlling principle is that a person may not pass off his goods or his business as the goods or business of another. Standard Oil Company v. Standard Oil Company, 10 Cir., 252 F.2d 65, 72 (1958). In order to take advantage of this legal protection the party seeking relief must prove that there has been a trade-name infringement. To do so, the moving party must prove: First, that the trade-name used by the offending party is deceptive or confusing, in that the words or symbols are whimsical and not descriptive of the goods or services, or that the trade name has acquired a secondary meaning; second, that the public is or will be confused and deceived by the use of a similar trade name. First National Bank of Lander v. First Wyoming Savings and Loan Association, Wyo., 592 P.2d 697, 703; and Annot., 150 A.L.R. 1067, 1069. Words that are whimsical or not descriptive of the goods or services have been held to be exclusive. However, words that are descriptive or geographical have been held to be nonexclusive because of public policy. Bernstein v. Friedman, 62 Wyo. 16, 160 P.2d 227, 229 (1945); and American Plan Corp. v. State Loan & Finance Corp., 3 Cir., 365 F.2d 635, 638 (1966). The trade names Plains Tire and Battery Company, Inc., and Plains A to Z Tire Company, Inc., do not appear to be deceptive or confusing on their face and the words common to both are generic and geographical. Therefore, it must be determined whether there was substantial evidence presented at trial to establish that the trade name Plains Tire and Battery Company has acquired a secondary meaning in its trading area. Appellee does not contend that a secondary meaning was not established.
To establish that a trade name has acquired a secondary meaning, the party seeking relief must prove that the customers have associated the trade name with the source of the goods or services, rather than associating the trade name with the goods or services, themselves. Boron Oil Company v. Callanan, 50 Mich. App. 580, 213 N.W.2d 836, 838 (1973). When considering whether a secondary meaning has been established, the trier of fact must take into consideration the length of time that a trade name has been connected with the goods or services and the extent of the advertisement. Wyoming National Bank v. Security Bank & Trust Co., Wyo., 572 P.2d 1120, 1124 (1977). By extent, we mean the amount of money spent on advertisement, the method employed and the amount of advertisement that was done. Wyoming National Bank, supra. Here, Mr. Gerstner testified that during the thirty-some years that he and his partner operated Plains Tire and Battery Company they continually advertised in the newspaper and on the radio. The extent of the advertising varied. Mr. Gerstner estimated that the amount spent ranged from $50 to $300 a month, and the evidence presented at trial showed that in 1974 $4,481.82 was spent on advertising and in 1975 $4,860.00 was spent on advertising. Mr. Gerstner also testified that the name Plains Tire and Battery Company is a valuable asset and that he had spent thirty-one years building up the name. As he stated: It [the name Plains Tire and Battery Company] represented a lot of sweat and blood. I'll tell you, we built that name up from nothing. When we bought the place, it had a bad name, in fact. We didn't know it and it took us quite a few years to build that name up here in Laramie so it did mean quite a bit to me, you bet. Mr. Nicholls, one of the purchasers of Plains Tire and Battery Company, stated that he paid more money for the business than the actual building, equipment and inventory was worth because he was buying the name Plains Tire and Battery Company. As Nicholls stated: ... [W]ith my experience with Michelin in their early days of marketing in the United States, by and large their dealers were the best or the most respected dealers in a given city and the fact that they had been there for thirty some odd years, we felt that even though we could buy land and build a building cheaper and probably get a better location, that because the business had been in business for thirty years, was doing a respectable business and had a good name and Michelin products line which was the same as our product line, that it made sense to pay more money and buy that business rather than try to start our own business up from scratch. While there was no specific price attached to the sale of the trade name, the sales contract does provide that [s]eller hereby transfers and sells to the buyer all advertising leases and the trade name of Plains Tire and Battery exclusively for buyer's use... . After purchasing the business in 1977, Nicholls testified that he continued to use the name Plains Tire and Battery Company and that he significantly increased the amount of advertisement. He still advertised the business in the newspaper and on the radio, and he has spent an estimated $25,000 a year on advertisement. There is substantial evidence to support a finding that the trade-name Plains Tire and Battery Company acquired a secondary meaning in the trade area. Therefore we cannot support the trial court's judgment that necessarily implies that no secondary meaning attached to the name Plains Tire and Battery Company.
Having found that a secondary meaning attached to the name Plains Tire and Battery within its territory, the real issue is whether the use of the name Plains A to Z Tire Company, Inc., in appellant's territory has had the effect of creating the impression in the minds of ordinary purchasers, who are using due care, that the products and services sold under that name are Plains Tire and Battery Company, Inc.'s products and services. Plains A to Z Tire Company contends that appellant has failed to prove: 1. That the names of the businesses are the same or deceptively similar; 2. That significant confusion has or is likely to occur because of the use of the two names; 3. That appellee had a fraudulent intent when it used the name Plains A to Z Tire Company. Appellee further contends that this three-step evaluation is sequential. Failure to meet the burden of proving any one of these facts would automatically require that judgment be granted in favor of the defendant. Plains A to Z Tire Company also claims that it has a better claim to the right to use the word `Plains.' In Standard Oil Company, supra, cited with approval in Wyoming National Bank, supra, a case which we consider most pertinent to the case at bar, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding that the use of the designation Sohio in plaintiff's territory, whose trademarks included Standard Oil, Standard, SO, SO Co., S O C O, and Solite amounted to unfair competition and to an infringement upon the plaintiff's rights. In carefully setting forth the rule concerning a finding of confusion, the court said: This court has announced the following controlling rule: `It is the generally accepted rule that a designation is confusingly similar to a trade-mark if an ordinary prospective purchaser, exercising due care in the circumstances, is likely to regard it as coming from the same source as the trade-marked article.    The question is usually one of fact    which in some cases may be determined by visual comparison, as where specific differences are so marked that the general appearance could not be confusing,    or where it is inconceivable that an ordinary purchaser examining the two labels would be deceived.    In other cases extrinsic evidence may be necessary.' (Footnotes omitted.) In rejecting the defendant's contention that a lack of confusing similarity can be conclusively established by a visual comparison of the oval `Sohio' sign with the torch and oval `Standard' sign of the plaintiff and with the plaintiff's other trade-marks `SO,' `SO Co.,' `S O C O,' and `Solite,' Standard Oil Company, supra, 252 F.2d at 73, the court stated: While in some cases, particularly those involving labels, the question of confusing similarity may be determined by visual observation of the words, signs, or symbols involved, the test is not solely such a `juxtapositional comparison.' The setting in which the designations are used must be considered. As said in Avrick [ Avrick v. Rockmont Envelope Co., 10 Cir., 155 F.2d 568], supra, 155 F.2d at pages 572-573: `It is the total effect produced by the designation in the mind of the ordinary purchaser, exercising due care in the market place,' (Footnotes omitted.) Standard Oil Company, supra, 252 F.2d at 73. The court goes on to point out that the parties are engaged in identical enterprises and [t]hey draw their customers from the same sources. Standard Oil Company, supra, 252 F.2d at 73. The court then concludes: Infringement is not to be determined on the basis of the words or symbols themselves to the exclusion of other considerations. It is not necessary for similarity to go only to the eye or the ear for there to be infringement. The use of a designation which causes confusion because it conveys the same idea, or stimulates the same mental reaction, or has the same meaning is enjoined on the same basis as where the similarity goes to the eye or the ear. Confusion of origin of goods may be caused alone by confusing similarity in the meaning of the designations employed. The whole background of the case must be considered. (Footnotes omitted.) To begin with, we cannot agree with appellee's contention that the evaluation is sequential. As the Standard Oil Company court pointed out, all of the facts in each particular case must be considered before making a determination as to whether or not there has been a trade-name infringement. Infringement is not to be determined on the basis of the words or symbols themselves to the exclusion of other considerations. Standard Oil Company, supra, 252 F.2d at 73-74. In 3 Callman, Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies, § 80 at p. 538 (3d Ed. 1969), it is stated: It is the gravamen of an action for trademark infringement that the defendant's use of a trademark similar to the plaintiff's created a likelihood of confusion. The similarity of the trademarks is the potential source of such confusion and, in this context, exact similitude is not a sine qua non. Even trademarks that are not Siamese twins may, in general appearance or impression, be sufficiently similar to suggest a likelihood of confusion. Appellee's first contention is that the two names are not deceptively similar. We have already ruled that the use of the generic and geographical terms, Plains, Tire and Company are not deceptive on their faces. However, this determination alone does not require a finding that there has not been a trade-name infringement. Nor can we agree with appellee that the Secretary of State's determination that `PLAINS TIRE & BATTERY CO., INC.' was not deceptively similar to the existing corporation `PLAINS A TO Z TIRE CO., INC.' should be accepted by this court unless it is clearly wrong as a matter of law. In First National Bank of Lander, supra, 592 P.2d at 700, this court held that as a general rule administrative determinations as to whether corporate names are deceptively similar is not conclusive as to the right to use the name. And as said in 3 Callman, Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies, § 80.6 at p. 565: Confusion is not to be denied merely because an administrative authority, as, for example, a State Board licensing a corporation ..., did not object to the adoption of a certain name or mark. Furthermore, in considering the similarity between the two names and the likelihood of confusion, a court must consider the total effect of the trade names rather than dissecting the trade-names looking for dissimilarities. As stated in 3 Callman, Law of Unfair Competition, Trademarks, and Monopolies, § 81.1 at pp. 570-574: ... The court should consider the mark `as a whole and not dissected,' for the ordinary buyer does not stop to dissect the marks; if the latter is deceived, it is attributable to the mark as a totality, and not normally to any particular part of it; `It is not enough to subtract from each mark the parts which are common and then to compare the balance ... What counts is the ensemble.' ... `Courts often make allowance for the fact that purchasers rely upon memory and somewhat vague or indefinite impressions when selecting a commodity. The passage of time might erase in their minds certain features of a trade mark such as common suffixes, while they retain other features which are dominant or salient.' If, however, the court considers the two marks side by side there is `no difficulty in apprehending the difference between them.' Confronted with this dilemma, the court must be alert to realize that it is not its function to educate the purchasers, but rather to take their carelessness for granted, and to be ever-conscious of the fact that the simulation need not be identical; a confusing similarity in overall impression will justify the intervention of equity... . In addition, appellee's argument that the two names are not deceptively similar because there is also a Plains Oil Company and a Plainsman Service Station located in Laramie, is not material. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Rudner, supra, 246 F.2d at 829. Neither can we agree with appellee's second contention that appellant has failed to produce evidence showing that the use of the two names in Laramie has created confusion. The record abounds with evidence of actual confusion. And as the Standard Oil Company court aptly pointed out, [t]here can be no more positive proof of likelihood of confusion than evidence of actual confusion. 252 F.2d at 74. Proof of actual confusion can be ignored only when it is clear that the confusion was attributable to extraordinary circumstances or that it only occurred, and could only occur, in a single instance. Callman, supra, § 80.6 at p. 563. The evidence of confusion presented at trial was not that of a single incident; therefore, this court cannot merely ignore this evidence in order to sustain the trial court's decision. Like the parties in Standard Oil Company, supra, Plains Tire and Battery Company and Plains A to Z Tire Company are engaged in substantially identical enterprises. Both businesses draw their customers from the same sources. Standard Oil Company, supra, 252 F.2d at 73. Both businesses openly compete for business, and as the court stated in Standard Oil Company, supra, 252 F.2d at 73, [i]n such activities they must not compete unfairly or infringe upon the rights of the other. In the case at bar, Plains Tire and Battery Company introduced uncontroverted evidence of the confusion that has taken place since Plains A to Z Tire Company opened a branch store in Laramie. Bill Stringer, the manager of Plains Tire and Battery Company testified that customer confusion is a daily occurrence. Customers assume that Plains Tire and Battery Company, Inc., has opened a branch store. He attributed this confusion to the fact that the names Plains and Michelin have been associated together in Laramie for many years. [2] Stringer related a few of the incidents of customer confusion that he was aware of. For example, Holiday Inn, located in Laramie, Wyoming, made an appointment at Plains Tire and Battery Company to have tires put on its station wagon. As Stringer testified, ... [a]fter the car did not show up for the appointment, I called and they said they apologized, they said the car was already back to them and it already had tires on it, that the tires had been put on by mistake out at A to Z. Stringer also testified that he was unable to convince one customer, Larry Castle, that Plains Tire and Battery Company had not advertised that it would balance wheels for free if the customer had the company put tires on his vehicle. This promotional deal was being offered by Plains A to Z Tire Company. After Larry Castle had his tires put on by Plains Tire and Battery Company, he was not pleased to discover that his wheels would not be balanced for free. Stringer testified that Castle thought the two companies were one and the same and that he was never able to convince Castle that Plains Tire and Battery Company and Plains A to Z Tire Company were two separate businesses. Stringer testified that Castle thought it was just a poor way of operating the business, that we had told him one thing one time and another thing another time ... that we had failed to live up to our advertising. Victor Anderson, a civil engineer employed by Banner and Associates, testified that he and a co-employee needed tires for their company cars. Anderson also wanted to have new wheels put on. Anderson decided to patronize Plains Tire and Battery Company and he made an appointment there. The wheels that Anderson wanted had to be ordered from Denver, so when they arrived, Plains Tire and Battery Company called Anderson and informed him that the tires could be put on. Anderson's car was not available at that time, but Anderson did tell Terry Wilson, Anderson's co-employee, that he should take his car into Plains to have the new tires put on. When asked why he merely told Wilson to take his company car into Plains, Anderson said that he was not at that time aware of the fact that there were two tire businesses in Laramie using the name Plains. He also said that at the times I've bought tires in the past, I have dealt with Plains Tire and Battery and I honestly, when I said Plains, I thought I was being very clear on what I meant. Wilson took his car to Plains A to Z Tire Company and had new tires put on. Wilson indicated he did know that there were two tire businesses in Laramie using the name Plains, but did not think about asking which tire company Anderson was referring to. As Wilson stated: A. I didn't really think about it, but the last time I bought tires, I had been to Plains A to Z probably within two or three weeks previous to that with another vehicle. Q. So it was the name of that store that meant something to you? A. Yes. When he said Plains, I just made an assumption I'd take it back where I had been two or three weeks before. He also testified that he thought the use of the name Plains by both tire businesses resulted in the confusion. Anderson discovered that Wilson had taken his car to the wrong Plains tire company when he received a call from Plains Tire and Battery Company. The person calling wanted to know where the car was. After Anderson discussed the problem with Wilson, he called Plains Tire and Battery Company and explained that Mr. Wilson's vehicle already had the tires mounted on them, I indicated to them we would put the tires on my vehicle only and split the business two ways. Anderson also testified that the two names, Plains Tire and Battery Company and Plains A to Z Tire Company are confusing. Anne Wolf testified that she took her car to Plains A to Z Tire Company, Inc., to have the tires rotated, balanced and aligned. However, she called Plains Tire and Battery Company, Inc., to see if her car was ready. During direct examination Ms. Wolf testified that she thought they [the two tire companies] were one and two, you know, one and the same company. And when asked whether she felt that the two names were confusing, she stated: I think the word Plains is confusing, but if I would have looked further as to the address, I knew the different addresses so if I would have looked at the addresses, I probably wouldn't have made the mistake but the word Plains was confusing to me. A partner in the firm who represents Plains Tire and Battery Company, John Scott, testified that he needed to purchase tires and after learning that one of the firm's clients sold Michelin tires, he wanted to do business with his client. [3] Scott stated: I drive a Datsun vehicle and I've had very good success with Michelin tires and it was important to me to be able to purchase Michelin tires. I had, as I recall, a brief conversation with someone in our office with respect to one of our clients who was in the tire business. My inquiry led me to find out that, in fact, they did sell Michelin tires and armed with that knowledge, I felt that it would only be proper to purchase tires from one of our clients and I thought I was doing that. Scott mistakenly purchased tires from Plains A to Z Tire Company, Inc. He testified that before making the purchase he was vaguely aware that there were similarly related companies. He also stated that the use of the names Plains Tire and Battery Company and Plains A to Z Tire Company in Laramie was confusing to him. The president and sole stockholder of Plains A to Z Tire Company, Melvin Lenhardt, ran the Laramie store for the first two months after the store opened. He recalled one instance of customer confusion. A man called from Saratoga regarding Uniroyal tires. Lenhardt told this man that we were not the Uniroyal dealer in town, that we were Plains A to Z Tire Company, we were a new dealer in town and that we handled Michelin and Remington and that Plains Tire and Battery ... was the Uniroyal dealer in town. The man then told Lenhardt that he had heard of Plains A to Z Tire Company in Cheyenne. The next Saturday the man from Saratoga came in and purchased two snow tires. Lenhardt did not recall any other specific incidents of confusion because he is kept very busy at the Cheyenne store and as a result does not spend much time at the Laramie store. The manager of Plains A to Z Tire Company in Laramie, Neil Stratch, testified that he had experienced confusion similar to that experienced by Stringer, the manager of Plains Tire and Battery Company. He stated he had customers come into the store who had mistakenly thought that an advertisement placed by Plains Tire and Battery Company was a Plains A to Z Tire Company ad. Plains A to Z Tire Company advertises two times a month on consecutive days in the newspaper. When asked if Plains A to Z Tire Company benefits from the other tire company's advertising, Stratch stated: Yes, but it's a minimum. Stratch also testified that he has not tried to deemphasize the name Plains when advertising. [4] He also stated: ... [A]s far as the people that work under me, I instruct them to identify themselves as such [Plains A to Z Tire Company, Inc.]. Now, if there's any confusion, if a person comes in, they're instructed that Plains Tire is running a sale, for example, and they come in, we try to specify that it is not our sale, to offer them or at least show them what our pricing structure is and if they are not satisfied then they go up to Plains Tire, but we want to discourage taking advantage of their [Plains Tire and Battery Company, Inc.] ads. When asked what he could do to eliminate the possibility of any confusion between the two companies, Stratch replied: Well, I  one thing that I believe, it's not our fault in itself by any means and I've never felt that if one of my customers went to Plains Tire that they would be ripped of by any means. I think that the advertising  I'm advertising and Plains Tire is advertising, that creates more traffic and more traffic creates more business. So, I really think that it's been beneficial. I don't think it's been harmful at all. There was also lengthy testimony concerning other types of confusion. For example, Plains Tire and Battery Company's manager testified that his company has been identified as Plains A to Z on on-the-spot radio advertisements paid for by Plains Tire and Battery Company; he has received telephone calls that were actually meant for Plains A to Z's manager; he has received misbillings, checks made out to the wrong business and late notices for appellee's accounts; there is often confusion as to which company has ordered parts and often the parts are delivered to the wrong business. The evidence presented at trial of the actual confusion demonstrates that the ordinary customer finds these two trade names confusing. This evidence cannot be ignored.