Court Opinion

ID: 9685542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:46:35.871458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.560433
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
After a two-day trial in April, 1992, the trial court factually found (Finding of Fact #35) that “reasonably prudent customers would not confuse Plaintiffs business with Defendant’s.”
There exists, however, a “likelihood of confusion” between the Country Corner Family Restaurant in Hot Springs, and Nelson’s Kountry Korner establishments in Edge-mont, Custer and two nearby Wyoming communities.
In my opinion, the circuit court entered the above finding of fact, plus thirty-four more, contrary to the “likelihood of confusion” rule and, thus, was clearly erroneous. Conclusions of Law, based upon these erroneous findings, became mistakes of law. Permann v. Dept. of Labor, Unemp. Ins. D., 411 N.W.2d 113 (S.D.1987). There is no doubt that there is some evidence to support the position of appellee, Nelson’s Oil & Gas, Inc., d/b/a Nelson’s Kountry Korner. But that is not the test. The test, taken from United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948), which this Court adopted in In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970), is simply: Findings of *891Fact are clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, based upon the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We held in Time Out, Inc. v. Karras, 392 N.W.2d 434, 438 (S.D.1986) that the phrase “likelihood of confusion” is a factual question. Such holding was precise, recent precedent in this Court.
Phipps Bros., Inc., d/b/a Country Corner Family Restaurant, was the first in time and in right. It was the first competing business to use the name and, thus, enjoys common law rights. North Star State Bank v. North Star Bank Minnesota, 361 N.W.2d 889 (Minn.App.1985). Phipps Bros., Inc., d/b/a Country Corner Family Restaurant, used the name Country Corner Family Restaurant for a considerable period of time before Nelson’s Oil & Gas, Inc., d/b/a Nelson’s Kountry Korner infringed by using a name — a name which was similar in appearance, similar in sound, similar in the meaning of the name and similar in the nature of the goods and services. This was a civil wrong. Health Industries v. European Health Spas, 489 F.Supp. 860, 866 (D.S.D.1980). In my opinion, Phipps Bros., Inc., established a common law trademark. Obviously, the names of these two restaurants are phonetically indistinguishable. Finding of Fact #5 finds “Plaintiff (Phipps Bros.) registered the trademark ‘Country Corner Family Restaurant’ with the South Dakota Secretary of State on July 23, 1990.”
A “trader” [or competitor or dealer], by first employing a trade name, is
entitled to have the business which he has built up under such name protected against unfair competition on the part of subsequent rival traders, and equity may enjoin the use of such trade-names or similar names by subsequent rival traders where necessary to protect the business built up by the first dealer.
Storm v. Canyon Amusement Corp., 76 S.D. 413, 79 N.W.2d 698, 700 (1956). Thus, in-junctive relief will lie in the case at hand.
Regarding the extensive discourse on the scope of review which now disregards our 1986 holding in Time Out, supra, I respectfully dissent. In Time Out, this Court adopted the majority viewpoint in the United States (“the weight of authority” this opinion dubs it); now, approximately six and one-half years later, we cast aside our precedent. When does the Bar and Bench of this state set its feet on a legal premise we have heretofore enunciated?
Not only in Time Out, but also, in SDCL 15-6-52(a), we read
Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. (Emphasis supplied mine).
Now, I close in this regard, citing to an old master, Henry Campbell Black. In The Law of Judicial Precedents 10-12 (1912), he sets forth five governing principles in the application of judicial precedents. Quoting him, I set forth the third principle:
Third. It is the duty of a court of last resort to abide by it by its own former decisions, and not to depart from or vary them unless entirely satisfied, in the first place that they were wrongly decided, and in the second place, that less mischief loill result from their overthrow than from their perpetuation. This is the proper application of the maxim, “stare decisis.” (Emphasis supplied mine).
We have recent precedent before us, handed down by this Court, and we should not jettison our former decision. Again, I read in 2 Vill.L.Rev. 367-369 (1957), a writing of John Hanna, The Role of Precedent in Judicial Decision, that “stare decisis” is the abbreviated form of “stare decisis et non quieta movere,” which is translated to mean “to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled.” Hanna quotes Blackstone thereat:
The doctrine of the law then is this: that precedents and rules be followed, unless flatly absurd or unjust; for though their reason be not obvious at first view, yet we owe such a deference to former times as to not suppose that they acted wholly without consideration. (Emphasis supplied mine).
South Dakota’s lawyers are entitled to a continuity of the law, rooted in a belief of reliance on how this Court has ruled in the past. Based on such a reliance, they have a reasonable expectation of future decisions. *892This, in turn, equates into advice unto the public. I would stay the course on Time Out and the majority viewpoint in the United States.