Court Opinion

ID: 9694084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:21:32.365744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:55.610751
License: Public Domain

*706ON MOTION TO AMEND
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the court’s Findings of Fact is denied. It is not necessary to the case or the opinion to amend these facts.
In the opinion of December 5, 19791 this court carefully traversed the ground it felt relevant to making an equitable decision. I looked at the policy and purposes of the Lanham Act and public policy, and I explored the meaning of the names at issue as they existed in the minds of the public. The formulation of the injunction in this case was not based on the technicalities of the dates of the registration of names in the state 'capítol, but of the names involved as their secondary meaning existed in the Philadelphia area and the nation.2
Plaintiffs’ motion indicates that they may misunderstand the entire thrust of my opinion. Plaintiffs established a prima facie right to certain trademarks. However, sitting as a chancellor in equity I determined that the relief plaintiffs requested would cause confusion and harm to the public contrary to the policy and purposes of the Lanham Act. I also determined that plaintiffs were before me with discriminatory intent, purpose, and design, and that their discriminatory purpose was contrary to public policy. I also commented upon certain constitutional difficulties that would have been created had I granted plaintiffs the relief requested given the fact that I had previously found that plaintiffs were before me with discriminatory motive and design. I do not believe that the requested additional Findings of Fact have significant relevance to the basis of my decision.

. Docketed December 7, 1979, and amended sua sponte December 10, 1979.

. See the opinion at page 15. “More importantly, the Philadelphia Jaycees have retained their independence and separate identity in a practical sense and in the public’s mind.”