Court Opinion

ID: 9444970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:17:18.761717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:05.066485
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
While I agree that appellant is entitled to no relief, I think that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
Clearly, appellant’s trademark (footnote 2 to majority opinion) is limited for use upon goods of the type therein described. It cannot protect the appellant in the operation of its restaurant for “service marks” first became registrable under the Lanham Act in 1946. 15 U.S. C.A. §§ 1053, 1127. See the Commentary by Miss Daphne Robert preceding the Lanham Trade-Mark Act in 15 U.S.C.A. at pages 269 and 270. Appellant’s trademark was originally registered in 1930, and the registration was simply renewed under the Lanham Act in 1950.
No facts were alleged or proved to show that the appellee used the registered mark or any colorable imitation of it upon or in connection with the sale of any such goods, or was in any way guilty of infringement as defined in the Lan-ham Act. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1). The only claimed infringement, alleged or proved, was that the appellee established and operated a restaurant under the trade name “White Kitchen”.
That claim is too unsubstantial, I think, to support any dependent jurisdiction of the federal district court over appellant’s claim for unfair competition. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(b). A closely analogous situation was treated by Judge Learned Hand in American Auto Ass’n v. Spiegel, 2 Cir., 205 F.2d 771, 773, 774.1 *740I think, therefore, that the district court was without jurisdiction.
If there were any reasonable possibility of appellant’s proving a meritorious case of unfair competition, after possibly amending his complaint to show diversity jurisdiction, I would advocate remanding the cause without specific direction. I agree, however, with the majority that the evidence fails entirely to establish a case of unfair competition. That being true, when the district court lacked jurisdiction, we should not affirm on the merits, but should vacate the judgment and remand the ease with directions to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction, though taxing all costs against the appellant.
So thinking, I am constrained respectfully to dissent.

. The holding as expressed in the third headnote:
“Claim of automobile club that its trade-mark AAA, enclosed in an oval, was infringed by defendant’s unauthor*740ized display at his filling station of such mark was to unsubstantial to support any dependent jurisdiction of federal district court over club’s claim for unfair competition, under the Judiciary Act. 28 U.S.O.A. § 1338(b); Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 32(1) (a), 15 U.8.C.A. § 1114(1) (a).’’