Court Opinion

ID: 9449030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:53:12.871678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:39.518277
License: Public Domain

LEWIS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I am in complete accord with the conclusion reached in the main opinion that appellant, by unrefuted evidence, established a right to the trade name “Herit*529age” and is entitled to protection against infringement. But I cannot agree that a retail furniture store attracting its customers under the name “Heritage House,” but not selling “Heritage” furniture, is not abusing the name. To me, it seems not only likely but inevitable that a furniture buyer seeking “Heritage” furniture would be drawn to a furniture store named “Heritage House.” Although such a buyer, if cautious, might upon careful examination discover his error, the damage of unfair competition is nevertheless complete. Nor can I see legal significance in the fact that the abuser is a small store in a small town. Appellant not only has a right to protect his trade name against small competition but has a duty to do so before a subjectively innocent but legally guilty competitor expands.
I would reverse.