Court Opinion

ID: 9552017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:03:32.546455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:25.625357
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Justice,
dissenting.
My disagreement with the majority opinion is grounded on the belief that there is evidence in the record (including reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom) upon which the trial court could base the findings of fact implicitly made by it in its judgment, and on the belief that the majority opinion is not applying the correct standard of proof.
THE ISSUES
Appellant’s position here is that it has “acquired a secondary meaning in its name through thirty-four (34) years of usage in *930the Laramie, Wyoming area,”1 and that “the trial court’s judgment was inconsistent with the substantial and uncontradicted evidence” relative to “confusingly similar” names; relative to the purpose of use by appellee; relative to the “degree of care likely to be exercised by customers”; and relative to whether customers “have been confused or deceived.”
The majority opinion sets forth evidence presented by appellee on the question of “confusion” and concludes that the denial of injunctive relief was not supported by the evidence. This, in disregard of the recognition in the majority opinion that the question “is largely one of fact * * * to be determined by the trier of fact” and its statement that:
“ * * * We will not substitute our view of the facts for that of the trier of fact, and findings will only be set aside upon appeal if they are ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight of evidence.’ * * * ” Majority opinion, supra, first paragraph under heading Trade-Name Infringement.
The majority opinion also sets forth and considers only the evidence of appellant while disregarding the presumptions and evidence in favor of appellee. This, in direct opposition to the oft-repeated and well-established standard by which we review the question of sufficiency of the evidence:
“ ' * * * An appealing party has a heavy burden to overcome. We must assume that the evidence in favor of the successful party is true, leave out of consideration entirely the evidence of the unsuccessful party that conflicts with it and give the evidence of the successful party every favorable inference which may reasonably and fairly be drawn from it.’ * * *” Cline v. Sawyer, Wyo., 618 P.2d 144, 145 (1980); Jelly v. Dabney, Wyo., 581 P.2d 622, 624 (1978); Madrid v. Norton, Wyo., 596 P.2d 1108, 1117 (1979).
THE LAW
The greatest portion of law in this area has developed with reference to trademarks rather than trade names. However, the similarity between trademarks and trade names makes the law of one generally applicable to that of the other.
In two fairly recent cases, we have established some guidelines in trade name cases, i. e., Wyoming National Bank of Casper v. Security Bank & Trust Co., Wyo., 572 P.2d 1120 (1977) and First National Bank of Lander v. First Wyoming Savings & Loan Association, Wyo., 592 P.2d 697 (1979). We there held that unless a trade name is confusing and deceptive on its face, those seeking protection of the same must take the burden of proving that the trade name has acquired a secondary meaning through years of usage and that the public would be confused by the similarity; that this is particularly true of geographic or generic words; that secondary meaning occurs when, by the process of association, the word becomes distinctive and distinguishes not only the producer of a particular service and its quality but also the name of the producer of that service; that the questions are largely factual determinations to be made by the trier of fact2 which will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and with regard to the likelihood of confusion, the consumer bears some responsibility for using reasonable care.
The proof of secondary meaning or of confusion must be by “substantial” evidence. The Restatement of Torts § 716(b), *931p. 558 (1938)3 defined a trade name as any designation which:
“(b) through its association with such goods, services or business, has acquired a special significance as the name thereof, * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Comment with reference thereto reads:
“h. * * * The phrase ‘secondary meaning,’ as thus used, does not mean a subordinate or rare significance. It means rather a subsequent significance added to the previous meaning of the designation and becoming in the market its usual and primary significance.
“Whether or not a designation has acquired this special significance is a question of fact in each case. No particular period of use is required. In some cases the special significance is not acquired even after an extended period of use; in others it is acquired after a brief period. The issue in each case is whether or not in fact a substantial number of present or prospective purchasers understand the designation, when used in connection with goods, services or a business, not in its primary lexicographical sense, but as referring to a pártieular person or association. Long continued use of the designation is evidence from which this ‘secondary meaning’ may properly be inferred; but the inference is rebuttable.” (Emphasis supplied.)
And Comment c to § 727, Restatement of Torts, reads:
“e. * * * the likelihood that prospective purchasers will regard the use of the designation in the manner stated must be substantial. That there is a very remote possibility that prospective purchasers generally will so regard the use is not enough. Nor is it enough that there is a strong likelihood that one or two prospective purchasers will be so misled. On the other hand, the rule does not require a probability of general confusion among most of the prospective purchasers. Compare § 728, Comment a.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Referenced § 728, Comment a reads:
“a. Likelihood of confusion. The ultimate test of whether or not there is a confusing similarity between a designation and a trade-mark or trade name which it is alleged to infringe is the effect in the market in which they are used. In some cases the probable effect can be determined by a mere comparison of the designation with the trade-mark or trade name. In other cases extrinsic evidence may be necessary. In any event, the issue is whether an appreciable number of prospective purchasers of the goods or services in connection with which the designation and the trade-mark or trade name are used are likely to regard them as indicating the same source. That a few particularly undiscerning prospective purchasers might be so misled is not enough. On the other hand, it is enough that an appreciable number of purchasers are likely to be so misled, even though by exercising greater discernment they could avoid the error. The issue of confusing similarity is an issue of fact as to the probable or actual reactions of purchasers. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)
See Corning Glass Works v. Jeannette Glass Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 308 F.Supp. 1321, affirmed 2 Cir., 432 F.2d 784 (1970); Fotomat Corporation v. Cochran, D.C.Kan., 437 F.Supp. 1231 (1977). Six witnesses to actual confusion were held too “minimal” to support a likelihood of confusion in DeCosta v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 1 Cir. 1975, 520 F.2d 499, cert. denied 423 U.S. 1073, 96 S.Ct. 856, 47 L.Ed.2d 83 (1976). Misdirected letters have been held as non-probative in this respect. Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Out in America, 5 Cir. 1973, 481 F.2d 445; B. D. Communications, Inc. v. Dial Media, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 429 F.Supp. 1011 (1977); Scott Paper Company v. *932Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 3 Cir. 1978, 589 F.2d 1225.
“A new competitor is not held to the obligations of an insurer against all possible confusion. He is not obligated to protect the negligent and inattentive purchaser from confusion resulting from indifference. [Citation.] It has been said that he is not required to make the market ‘foolproof.’ * * * ” Life Savers Corporation v. Curtiss Candy Co., 7 Cir. 1950, 182 F.2d 4, 8.
The likelihood of buyer confusion and the existence of secondary meaning are interdependent. If confusion exists, the subject of confusion must have secondary meaning; and if secondary meaning is lacking, buyer confusion cannot exist. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Lee, 212 Cal.App.2d 23, 27 Cal.Rptr. 833 (1963); Nationwide Advertising Service, Inc. v. Nation-Wide Employment Agencies, Inc., Cust. & Pat.App., 471 F.2d 638 (1973); Premier-Pabst Corporation v. Elm City Brewing Co., D.C.Conn., 9 F.Supp. 754 (1935).
The testimony of dealers, wholesalers, and employees of the trade name organization are of “little value” in the determination of the existence of secondary meaning. Hot Shoppes, Inc. v. Hot Shoppe, Incorporated, D.C.M.D.N.C., 203 F.Supp. 777 (1962); Application of Duvernoy & Sons, Inc., 41 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 856, 212 F.2d 202 (1954); 88¢ Stores, Inc. v. Martinez, 227 Or. 147, 361 P.2d 809 (1961); Application of Meyer & Wenthe, Inc., 46 C.C.P.A. 919, 267 F.2d 945 (1959).
Secondary meaning is not the same as popularity. Ralston Purina Company v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 341 F.Supp. 129 (1972); Norwich Pharmacal Company v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 2 Cir. 1959, 271 F.2d 569, cert. denied 362 U.S. 919, 80 S.Ct. 671, 4 L.Ed.2d 739 (1960).
THE EVIDENCE
Following is a brief summary of record evidence favorable to appellee and supportive of the factual findings of the trial court.4
The businesses of both appellee and appellant originated from the same entity, which was established in 1945-46. In that entity, the Laramie store was “Plains Tire and Battery Co. No. 2,” and the Cheyenne store was “Plains Tire and Battery Co. No. 1.” In 1952, appellee’s name became “Plains A to Z Tire Co., Inc.,” upon acquisition of another business named “A to Z Tire Company.” A certificate of incorporation was issued by the Secretary of State to appellee as “Plains A to Z Tire Co., Inc.” on March 26, 1952. When one was issued to appellant as “Plains Tire and Battery Co., Inc.” on October 31,1977, twenty-five years later, the Secretary of State made a determination that the two names were not the same or “deceptively similar.” Appellee began operations in the Laramie area in September 1971, servicing commercial customers primarily. It has operated out of a Laramie location since 1978. Appellant offered to sell its business to appellee for appellee’s Laramie operations in 1977, but appellee refused the offer, partly because of the downtown location. Appellee’s sales volume for 1979 from the Laramie location was $748,310 (from Laramie, Cheyenne and Wheatland stores, it was $2,682,137) and appellant’s was $462,465. Michelin tires are sold by both parties. Appellant also sells Goodyear and Uniroyal, and appellee also sells Remington. Appellee’s Michelin sales in Laramie amount to about 15 percent of the gross sales. Appellant had been the only Michelin dealer in Laramie, but now there are five others. Michelin does not grant an exclusive franchise. Larry Clinton Nichols, appellant’s president and major stockholder, testified that the association of Michelin’s name with that of appellant “made our name and Plains Tire and Battery means something more to the customer.” The November 1979 Laramie telephone directory lists two businesses in addition to those of the parties with the word *933“Plains” in their names, i. e., “Plains Oil Co.” and “Plainsman Service.” Sy Gerst-ner, former partner in Plains Tire and Battery Co. (appellant) testified that subsequent to 1956, appellant had “difficulties” with Plainsman Service in that:
“Well, we had people that called us for an appointment and never showed up and then maybe that evening we’d find out that they were over at Plainsman Service instead of over at our place. We had people that would leave a tire over at Plainsman Service, their son or daughter would maybe leave a tire over at Plainsman Service when it was supposed to be left at our place and they’d come looking for it at our place, so we started calling around and finally found it over at Plainsman Service, when it was actually supposed to come to us.”
MAJORITY OPINION FALLACIES
Appellant had the burden of proving the acquisition of a secondary meaning to its trade name and consumer confusion. The trial court held that the burden was not met. The evidence was ample in support of the trial court’s determination.
The large volume of business accomplished by appellee — and by appellant, for that matter — reflects that many consumers had found the respective businesses and there was no evidence that a “substantial” or “appreciable” number of them attached a secondary meaning to the respective names or that they were confused in their trade selection. The six specific instances of actual confusion referred to in the majority opinion are far from a substantial or appreciable number in view of the over $1 million worth of business conducted by the parties in Laramie. It was not established that any of the six were other than “inattentive” purchasers. One of them had no confusion as to the desired party, but only picked the wrong number from the telephone directory in calling to see if the work was accomplished. Another of them knew of the separate businesses, but neglected to ask the person who requested him to take his auto to “Plains” to which “Plains” he was referring. Two of the six instances were related by an employee of appellant and one other involved a member of the law firm representing appellant. All in all, this evidence could well be found by the trial court to be too “minimal” to support the likelihood of confusion.5
The interdependent nature of “likelihood of confusion” and “secondary meaning” has been noted. The trial court’s determination that appellant’s name had not acquired a secondary meaning is not only supported by the lack of evidence of confusion by a substantial number of consumers, but is evidenced by the fact that some consumers had previously dealt with appellant, thinking they were dealing with Plainsman Service. Perhaps, the name “Plainsman Service” had acquired the secondary meaning.
In fact, the evidence reflects that a secondary meaning, if any, could be to the name of appellee rather than appellant. Appellee established its corporate name twenty-five years before appellant did so. Both businesses originated from a common entity, and appellee had been operating in southwest Wyoming for a long period of time. It had operated in Laramie since 1971, seven years before it opened a store location in Laramie. Appellant tried to sell its business to appellee when appellee decided to open a store in Laramie. Appellee’s volume of business in Laramie was half again as much as that of appellant. The evidence was not only sufficient for a finding by the trial court that appellant did not have a secondary meaning in its name, but it was sufficient to find that appellee did so.
Appellant’s president and major stockholder testified that the association with Michelin “made our name and Plains Tire and Battery means something more to the customer.” “Michelin” is not part of appellant’s trade name. It cannot obtain an exclusive right to handle Michelin tires by means of this action. There was extensive testimony relative to the Michelin name as *934associated with that of the parties. The issue has to do with a secondary meaning of the names of the parties, not as it could apply to the name “Michelin.” Appellant’s attention to the Michelin association coupled with the fact that appellee’s sales of Michelin tires amounted to only 15 percent of the gross sales could be a factor in the finding by the trial court that appellant’s name had not acquired a secondary meaning.
In accordance with the standard of review recognized by the majority opinion, supra, and set forth in the quotation from Cline v. Sawyer, supra, I must conclude that the evidence in favor of appellee, leaving out of consideration entirely the conflicting evidence of appellant and giving to the the evidence in favor of appellee every favorable inference to be reasonably and fairly drawn therefrom, dictates affirmance of the trial court’s factual findings.
I would affirm.

. The parties seem to be in agreement that the names themselves are not confusing. The only common words are “Plains” and “Tire.” The other words in the respective names preclude ipso facto confusion.

. Some of the federal circuits consider the likelihood of confusion to be a question of law. See e. g., United States Jaycees v. San Francisco Junior Chamber of Commerce, D.C.N.D.Cal., 354 F.Supp. 61 (1972), affirmed 9 Cir. 1975, 513 F.2d 1226; Miss Universe, Inc. v. Patricelli, 2 Cir. 1969, 408 F.2d 506. The Tenth Circuit *931treats it as a question of fact, Drexel Enterprises, Inc. v. Richardson, 312 F.2d 525 (10 Cir.1962).

. Chapter 35 (Confusion of Source) in the First Restatement of Torts was omitted from the Restatement Second because the law of Unfair Competition and Trade Regulation had grown away from dependence upon tort law.

. As recognized in the majority opinion, a judgment carries with it every finding of fact supporting the successful party that “can be reasonably and fairly drawn from the evidence,” citing Kvenild v. Taylor, Wyo., 594 P.2d 972, 976 (1979).

. As noted, the misdirected mail, invoices, etc., are of no probative value.