Court Opinion

ID: 9553329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:28:00.910672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:47.379323
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Respectfully, I dissent. Upon reading the main opinion, I agreed with everything through paragraph 9, and thought the plaintiff was prevailing. Thereafter, through paragraph IS, I found it was not.
The main opinion said “the number of geometric designs in which buildings may . be constructed are comparatively- few,” with which I disagree. The opinion continues that “The figure known as a diamond is a very common one .and a court should be reluctant to permit a person to appropriate such a common figure exclusively to his own use.” This statement admits that if the court is not very reluctant, the rough-cut diamond might obtain a significance that, coupled with some highly polished facets might become a priceless jewel, — separate from an optically similar stone, having a brilliance and lustre that are induplicable.
The fallacy of the main opinion is in implying that a diamond shape, though in-*15appropriable as such, cannot be appropriated if used in a unique way, including its association with new or different applications to which it may be combined. This is to say that the diamond symbol, when associated with, for example “Diamond-T” a well known national brand, will permit poachers indiscriminately to use “Diamond-T” in advertising a similar product. The cases have never permitted a purloining of an identical trade name simply because there was a diamond symbol somewhere in what the main opinion concedes was a unique architectural design.
The famed “Brown Derby” restaurant owners will be somewhat .amazed to read that their use of a sphere and a couple of other curved areas painted brown could be exploited by someone else 17 feet or 17 blocks or 17 miles from this famed meeting place of Hollywood celebrities. Safeway Stores also might arch skeptical brows in learning that their use of the letter “S” in a unique way, known and recognized by the public as its hard-earned trade-mark, now has no protectible value in this state, and must succumb to an interloper opening a store next door using the identical symbol or a deceptive replica thereof. The “M.J.B.” coffee company may have some concern if another coffee company started selling “M.J.B.” coffee. ' I am sure there would be some consternation if someone on Main Street, Salt Lake City, or for that matter, in Sandy, Utah, 17 miles away, built a building of the same design, — color or no color, and advertised identical commodities for sale as does the “Z.C.M.I.” The Taj Mahal people might not only resent but if it were in this, country, might be protected if someone built one just.like it 17 miles away and held it out as a tourist attraction to entice paying customers.
The main opinion makes a point ’ that there was some difference in the paint used and there was a different name, on the roof — conveniently placed parallel to the highway so that travelers would go past the place before knowing it was not one of plaintiffs five drive-ins, — a clever deception in and of itself. The" paint cannot destroy the uniqueness of design and architecture, — since it is the latter that is protected by the common law if recognized arid relied upon generally or.' specifically' by prospective patrons.
The main opinion says there is significance in the distance defendant’s place is from plaintiff’s. Seventeen miles. On a transcontinental highway, with freeways. In this day and age, and in this particular case the distance is about 10 to 15 minutes away;
*16The main opinion points out that this is not a case for conversion of plaintiff’s architectural plans, and volunteers that there is a suit pending by the architects against the defendant for stealing the plans. That fact pretty conclusively shows that defendants purloined the plans, built their building exactly according thereto, right down to the placement of trash cans as the exhibits clearly demonstrate. Why? The only reasonable conclusion is that it was to capitalize on plaintiff’s five established business locations, situated on the same highway in close proximity to profit by plaintiff’s ingenuity, uniqueness of design and the business of its established going concerns. •
The case should be reversed.