Court Opinion

ID: 9643764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:40:00.355067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:03.511935
License: Public Domain

TREANOR, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Petitioners stipulated that each of the names, or brands, involved in this proceeding meant to a majority of the purchasing public an “olive oil soap”; and petitioners further stipulated that to a majority of the purchasing public an “olive oil soap” means “one, the content of which is 100% olive oil.” It is true, as pointed out in the majority opinion, that there was testimony to the contrary by witnesses who appeared personally. Petitioners, however, were in a position to have special knowledge of the reaction of the purchasing public to the trade names, or brands, which identified their soaps. No doubt few people would be misled who analyzed the trade name with knowledge that palm oil and olive oil are distinct types of oil. We are not in a position to know how widespread among the purchasing public is the knowledge of the difference between palm and olive oils; nor are we informed what per cent of the soap purchasing public analyzes trade names, or brands. No doubt petitioners have considerable knowledge respecting the psychology of advertising and they have stipulated that the majority of the soap purchasing public would understand that the names, or brands, in question mean that the soaps bearing such names are olive oil soaps containing 100% olive oil. Such stipulation furnished substantial evidence for a finding that a substantial portion of the purchasing public was deceived by the names, or brands, used by petitioners.
Also I am of the opinion that the Commission’s order is warranted by the facts and that the provisions of the order do not go beyond the requirements of adequate protection to the public and the prevention of evasion.