Opinion ID: 1475663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Confusion of Source.

Text: We reach now what is perhaps the controlling principle in the instant case  that of confusion of source, with its corollary, dilution of good-will. This doctrine has been adumbrated in the excerpts from some of the decisions that we have already quoted: a direct inquiry into the problem is now in order. In a situation where there is no direct competition between the parties, confusion of source may be defined as a misleading of the public by the imitation of An attractive, reputable trade-mark or trade-name    not for the purpose of diverting trade from the person having the trade-mark or trade name to the imitator, but rather for the purpose of securing for the imitator's goods some of the good-will, advertising and sales stimulation of the trade-mark or trade name. Restatement, Id., at page 597. One's interest in a trade-mark or trade name came to be protected, therefore, not only on competing goods, but on goods so related in the market to those on which the trade-mark or trade name is used that the good or ill repute of the one type of goods is likely to be visited upon the other. Thus one's interest in a trade-mark or trade name is protected against being subjected to the hazards of another's business. Restatement, Id., at pages 597-598. The doctrine is well recognized in California. In the motion picture case, supra, 15 Cal.2d at page 689, 104 P.2d at page 652, the Supreme Court of the State said: The decisions of the courts for the most part are concerned with the principles applicable to infringement and unfair competition in respect to businesses which are directly competitive. But we perceive no distinction which, as a matter of law, should be made because of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in non-competing businesses. In situations involving the use of proper surnames in non-competitive businesses it has been held that where confusion was shown as likely to result the relief should be accorded to the complaining party. [Cases cited] Likewise it has been said that `without regard as to whether there is actual market competition between the parties for the same trade, it is sufficient if the unfair practices of the one will injure the other.' (Emphasis supplied.) Again, in Winfield v. Charles, 77 Cal. App.2d 64, 70, 175 P.2d 69, 74, the court reached the very heart of the problem when it observed: Plaintiff has established a reputation for reliability and meritorious products. If articles which are not produced by him are attributed to him or associated with his name, the injury is obvious. The rule has been repeatedly expounded by this and other Federal courts. [8]