Court Opinion

ID: 9738095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:42:34.596544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.663678
License: Public Domain

PILES, P. J.
I concur in the reversal but dissent from the holding that plaintiff cannot state a cause of action “unless it is able to plead and to prove some special circumstances, peculiar to the two businesses involved, from which confusion would be likely to result. ’ ’
The present complaint is defective in alleging that “certain” persons, rather than the public generally,* have been confused, but this can readily be cured by amendment. Plain*757tiff has already alleged that its retail business has long been well known by the name Sunset House, and that defendant has commenced to operate a restaurant in the same community using the same name. The public knows that many retailers operate restaurants, even though this plaintiff does not. I cannot say, as a matter of law, that the two businesses are so dissimilar that substantial confusion could not arise from the circumstances stated in the complaint. The issue is for the trier of the facts. (Cf. Winfield v. Charles, 77 Cal.App.2d 64, 70 [175 P.2d 69]; Safeway Stores v. Rudner, 246 F.2d 826; Safeway Stores v. Bunnell, 172 F.2d 649; see Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972, 973-974.)