Court Opinion

ID: 9450128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:35:59.05373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:09.614919
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Two medical experts testified for Carter Products. Dr. Paul A. Dailey, Chairman of the Illinois State Medical Society Committee on Nutx-ition, in substance testified that defendants’ advertising of their Wallace Super Dietary Mealz would injure Carter’s business reputation among physicians because they would believe that defendants’ product emanated from plaintiff. Dr. James R. Wilson, a nutrition specialist who had worked for the American Medical Association, testified that physicians “would wonder who put this [defendants’ product] out * * whether it was Wallace of New Jersey *467[Carter] or somebody else * * * their judgment * * * would be unfavorable if they thought Wallace of New Jersey put it out.” Defendants offered no contrary evidence. Thus, the likelihood of confusion in the minds of physicians, potential customers of plaintiff, as to the source of defendants’ product, as well as the likelihood of injury to plaintiff’s business reputation, was clearly established.
The majority opinion points out that the district court found no actual confusion between plaintiff’s and defendants’ products. Actual confusion, however, is not necessary; only likelihood of confusion need be shown. Lady Esther, Ltd. v. Lady Esther Corset Shoppe, 317 Ill.App. 451, 46 N.E.2d 165, 148 A.L.R. 6 (1943). In Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 277 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1960), with reference to the Illinois Trademark Act, IIl.Rev.Stat. ch. 140, §§ 19-22, this court said:
“It is well established in Illinois and by the decisions of this circuit that injunctive relief is properly granted in cases involving the use of deceptively similar names even though there is no proof of actual confusion. It is sufficient to show the likelihood that confusion will result and that the public might be misled. * * * This is so even where there is no competition between plaintiff and defendant.”
The majority emphasizes the fact that the products of the parties are sold through different channels and in different markets. Even though Carter’s products are sold by prescription and defendants’ product is sold to the public without prescription, the likelihood of confusion and the resulting dilution of the distinctiveness of plaintiff’s trade name are not negated. Recently, this court in Sterling Drug Inc. v. Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., 322 F.2d 968 (7th Cir. 1963), held that likelihood of confusion as to the source of origin of the products existed even though the product “Dia-parene” was sold through normal drug channels without prescription and the product “Dyprin” was sold primarily to physicians and drug stores. In that case we said:
“That a substantial portion of defendant’s somewhat limited distribution of its product represents sales to physicians who directly dispense it, and that it is often bought on prescription issued by a physician, do not serve to assure elimination of the likelihood of confusion as to source of origin which the other factors precipitate.”
The disparity in products and markets was even more pronounced in Polaroid Corp. v. Polaraid, Inc., 319 F.2d 830 (7th Cir. 1963). There, this court held that a manufacturer of refrigeration and heating systems should be enjoined from using the trade name “Polaraid” because of the likelihood of confusion with the trade name “Polaroid” used by a manufacturer of optical devices and photographic equipment. Judge Major, speaking for the court, disposed of the argument that the parties’ products were not sold to the same outlets or to the same type of customers on the grounds that this is a traditional argument made against a charge of unfair competition and “it is without force where a party adopts the invented or coined trademark or trade name of another.”
In the instant case the trade names are identical, the products are similar. Moreover, the likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products and the dilution of the distinctive quality of plaintiff’s trade name were established. In my opinion these facts present an even stronger case for injunctive relief under the Illinois statute than did Polaroid.
There, this court said:
“[The Illinois Trademark Act] * * * furnishes the basis for two causes of action: (1) if there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or (2) if there is a dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark or trade name. Moreover, it relieves an aggrieved party of the burden of proving competition be*468tween the parties or proving confusion as to the source of goods or services.
The instant case falls squarely within this interpretation of the Illinois statute.
The majority opinion does not attempt to distinguish the previous decisions of this court. In fact, they are not mentioned; nor indeed is any case cited to support the holding of the court. I would reverse.