Federal Glass Company v. Loshin, 220

Citation224 F.2d 100
Decision Date02 June 1955
Docket NumberDocket 23226.,No. 220,220
PartiesThe FEDERAL GLASS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel LOSHIN and Nathan Loshin, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Thew Wright, Jr., of Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn. (John W. Barnett, New Haven, Conn., and John J. Mahoney, of Corbett, Mahoney & Miller, Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Irving Levine, of Spiro & Levine, Danbury, Conn. (Abram W. Spiro, Danbury, Conn., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, MEDINA, Circuit Judge, and DIMOCK, District Judge.

CLARK, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a denial of its motion for summary judgment in an action for unfair competition based on the identity of company names used by the plaintiff and by the defendants. Both call themselves The Federal Glass Company, although they deal in very different products, the plaintiff manufacturing glass tumblers and dinnerware, and the defendants producing and installing glass plate and windowpanes. Plaintiff is a corporation conducting a nationwide business, with headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, while defendants' activities are confined to the Danbury, Conn. area. Judge Smith denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff had failed to show as a matter of law that its reputation with the general public was established in the Danbury area in 1926 when the defendants began their operations. D.C.Conn., 126 F.Supp. 737.

This case came before another panel of this court on defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of an appealable order, with the result that the motion was denied on the ground that plaintiff's collateral prayers for preliminary and final injunctive relief brought the case within 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1). Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 2 Cir., 217 F.2d 936 (the present writer dissenting). Had that issue come initially before the present panel, we should have been constrained to hold the other way, though we do not feel it appropriate to reverse this ruling here, and hence proceed to a consideration of the merits. But because of its possible bearing on further proceedings in this and other cases, we feel it necessary to state our disagreement with the majority view there expressed. The writer of this opinion adheres to the view he expressed in his dissent, 217 F. 2d 936, 938-940, and to the rationale of the Third Circuit cases he there cited and relied upon; Judge Medina concurs in that view; while Judge Dimock does not feel presently called upon to vote on this issue. A resolution of these conflicts must ultimately come from the Supreme Court. The most recent decision of that Court on the appealability of interlocutory orders, Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 75 S.Ct. 249, indicates that it is not likely to look with favor on this new inroad upon the traditional federal policy against piecemeal appeals.

Plaintiff's appeal challenges the standard of proof of prior reputation imposed on it by the district court. The prerequisites for recovery for unfair competition have been often set out by the Connecticut courts and by us. These include establishment of a prior secondary meaning and of a reasonable likelihood of confusion resulting from defendants' appropriation of plaintiff's name and good will. The ultimate question is always whether or not the public is likely to be deceived; and this is a question of fact, depending on all the attendant circumstances. Middletown Trust Co. v. Middletown Nat. Bank, 110 Conn. 13, 147 A. 22; Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. Rose, 120 Conn. 373, 181 A. 8; Yale Co-op. Corp. v. Rogin, 133 Conn. 563, 53 A.2d 383; Professional Equipment Co. v. Cardinal, 15 Conn.Supp. 384; Premier-Pabst Corp. v. Elm City Brewing Co., D.C.Conn., 9 F.Supp. 754; General Time...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 2, 1959
    ...a motion of plaintiff for summary judgment was appealable under § 1292(a) (1) although the plaintiff might later prevail upon a trial. The Loshin decision is all the more meaningful because of the thorough consideration on the part of Judges Learned Hand and Frank required by Judge Clark's ......
  • Fleischer v. Phillips
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 20, 1959
    ...to the orders denying the motions and render neither of them automatically appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1). Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 100, 101. See also Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp., 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 160; Albert v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh, 3 Cir......
  • Younker v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1963
    ... ... Sandusky County against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and associated companies, hereinafter referred to as ... 426, 36 S.Ct. 365, 60 L.Ed. 713; Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 100; Socony-Vacuum ... ...
  • Jim Mullen Charitable v. World Ability Fed., 1-07-2505.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 23, 2009
    ...Entertainment Corp. v. Entertainment Repertoire Associates, Inc., 62 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir.1995), citing Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 224 F.2d 100, 101-02 (2nd Cir.1955). Given the record before us, we find the issue of whether the Department's publication of notice in the Federal Register......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT