Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. CA-3-83-1128-D.,CA-3-83-1128-D. |
| Parties | FREDDIE FUDDRUCKERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. RIDGELINE, INC., d/b/a Purdy's Hamburger Market and Bakery, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Richard L. Schwartz, Houston, Tex., Charles S. Cotropia, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Kenneth Glaser, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc., (Fuddruckers) seeks a preliminary injunction against Ridgeline, Inc., (Ridgeline) d/b/a Purdy's Hamburger Market and Bakery (Purdy's) to prevent Purdy's from using the trade dress which Fuddruckers uses in association with its restaurant business. Hearings were held before the Court on January 6 and January 26, 1984. Having reviewed the evidence introduced at the hearings, along with the parties' arguments and briefs, the Court is of the opinion that a preliminary injunction should issue. In support of its grant of a preliminary injunction, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. Fuddruckers is a Texas corporation having its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas; its stock is publicly traded. Purdy's is a Texas corporation having its principal place of business in Addison, Texas.
2. Both Fuddruckers and Purdy's are engaged in the restaurant business and specialize in selling hamburgers.
3. Fuddruckers was incorporated on or about March 10, 1979, and opened its first restaurant under the name Fuddruckers in San Antonio, Texas, in March 1980. At the time of the hearing Fuddruckers had opened a total of fifteen restaurants, three of which are franchise arrangements.
4. The design of all franchises is controlled by Fuddruckers. A franchise must obtain approval for any changes in design. See Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3.
5. Fuddruckers is in the process of expanding the number of its restaurants and it has undertaken a franchise program. It has entered into a franchise agreement with Prufrock Ltd., Inc., for a restaurant in Dallas, Texas, to be opened on or about March 1984. Fuddruckers has also scheduled the opening of four other locations.
6. Ridgeline was incorporated on July 8, 1982. Ridgeline opened its first restaurant under the name Purdy's on June 12, 1983, in Addison, Texas, a suburb of Dallas.
7. On January 4, 1984, a second Purdy's was opened in Austin, Texas; it is located a short distance from the Austin Fuddruckers location.
8. At the time the Purdy's in Addison was opened, Fuddruckers had four locations operating. They were located in San Antonio (Botts Lane), Houston (Chimney Rock), San Antonio (Wurzbach) and Austin.
9. Leases have been executed by Ridgeline for Purdy's locations in Houston and Irving, Texas. Other Texas locations are also being considered. See Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 25.
10. Fuddruckers features the following items in its restaurants, which constitute, inter alia, its "trade dress": an exposed glassed-in butcher shop for meat preparation, which includes an area for hanging beef and for cutting and processing beef; a beef showcase; an exposed on-premises bakery for the preparation of bread and dessert products; a bakery showcase for the bakery products; a fresh vegetable condiment island with stacked vegetables, in part, in original shipping cartons; an open display of bags of potatoes, onions, flour and sugar; cases of beverages stacked to form aisleways and tables; the extensive use of white tile on counters and walls; dark brown and white checkerboard asbestos tile flooring; and interior green bands of neon lights and neon beer signs.
11. Purdy's features the following items in its restaurants: an exposed glassed-in butcher shop for meat preparation, which includes an area for hanging beef and for cutting and processing beef; an exposed on premises bakery for the preparation of bread and dessert products; a bakery showcase for bakery products; a fresh condiment island with stacked vegetables; an open display of bags of potatoes, onions, flour and sugar; stacked cases of beverages; the extensive use of white tile on counters and walls, interspersed at points with black tiles, black and white checkerboard flooring; interior green bands of neon light and neon beer signs.
12. The President and owner of Purdy's, Ralph McElroy (McElroy), visited the Botts Lane San Antonio Fuddruckers location in May 1982 with Allen Reich (Reich), the Vice-President/architect for Purdy's. McElroy again visited that location, as well as the Houston Fuddruckers location, in the summer of 1982 with his wife. In July 1982 McElroy decided to open a hamburger restaurant.
13. In the fall of 1982 Reich and McElroy again visited the Botts Lane San Antonio Fuddruckers. McElroy revisited that location a short time later with Donnie Marzluff (Marzluff), Purdy's manager of operations.
14. In December 1982 the Addison lease was negotiated by Purdy's. In March 1983 Reich prepared the floor plans for Purdy's. See Plaintiff Exhibits Numbers 20-22.
15. Construction began on Purdy's Addison location on April 19, 1983. In April 1983 McElroy, Reich, Marzluff and Mike Dobbins (Dobbins), the first manager for Purdy's, visited the Wurzbach Lane San Antonio and the Chimney Rock Houston Fuddruckers.
16. McElroy and his wife were responsible for the interior design of Purdy's. They received suggestions as to the interior design from Reich, Marzluff and Dobbins.
17. Fuddruckers was an important influence on McElroy's decision to open Purdy's. In the interior design of Purdy's McElroy sought to imitate the interior design of Fuddruckers in order to derive benefit from the reputation of Fuddruckers.
18. The design of the two restaurants is very similar. Key features in both restaurants are the same: the use of white/light color tiles as opposed to plain walls; the location and use of an open bakery showcase and exposed bakery area; an exposed butcher shop with hanging beef and visible preparation area; condiment islands which resemble grocery store vegetable departments; checkerboard floors; displays of groceries and beverages in their original packaging, and neon signage.
19. The purchasers of the parties' services are similar: young families who seek a nicer atmosphere than a fast food restaurant, as well as other consumers seeking to escape the fast food milieu.
20. Fuddruckers' advertising has consisted of paid magazine advertisements and articles written about Fuddruckers in various magazines and newspapers. See Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbers 5-12. The interior of Fuddruckers has been shown on television. Fuddruckers has contracted for a television advertising campaign.
21. Purdy's advertising has consisted of fliers, uniforms and stickers exhibiting its logo. Print media and radio advertising are being considered.
22. Both McElroy and Fuddruckers' President, Philip J. Romano (Romano), agree that the use of white tiles, open food preparation areas and visible ingredients is to produce an ambiance of freshness and unadulteratedness and to permit customers to see the quality of the ingredients used in the food served. These design features are related to the utilitarian function of the restaurant service which is to provide fresh food in clean surroundings, and they have led to the commercial success of these restaurants. However, it is the combination of the items listed in Finding of Fact No. 10, into an overall design or trade dress, which makes Fuddruckers unique and distinguishable from other restaurants which have, for example, a bakery display or a meat showcase. The overall design of Fuddruckers is arbitrary and non-functional.
23. Customer survey cards exhibit consumer confusion on the part of two individuals as to the relationship of Purdy's and Fuddruckers. See Plaintiff's Exhibit Numbers 26A and 26B; Defendant's Exhibit Number 20. Romano testified to statements by the public made of confusion as to the ownership of Purdy's by Fuddruckers, as did Fuddruckers' Dallas franchiser, Gene Street.
24. The overall design or impression of Fuddruckers has become identified in the mind of the public with Fuddruckers. The newspaper articles and television exposure are evidence of public recognition of the unique ambiance of Fuddruckers.
25. Fuddruckers is harmed by trade dress infringement to the extent that customers are confused as to the source of the services of Purdy's, its ability to expand its operation is hampered, and investment in its publicly traded stock may be negatively affected due to duplicability.
26. Purdy's interior design infringes on the trade dress of Fuddruckers.
27. Purdy's can alter its interior features which are similar to Fuddruckers, see finding of fact 18, in a limited manner to clearly distinguish itself from Fuddruckers' trade dress at a minimal cost and with minimal inconvenience to its operation and consumers.
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338 and 15 U.S.C. § 1121; venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The Court has jurisdiction over the related common law claims pursuant to pendent jurisdiction.
2. Fuddruckers asserts claims for trade dress infringement in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and common law unfair competition.
3. Trade dress is defined as the "total image" of a product, this may include features such as size, shape, color or color combination, texture, graphics, sales techniques, and lay-out of a floor plan. John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 980 (11th Cir.1983); Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, 684 F.2d 821, 830-832 (11th Cir. 1982); Associated Hosts of California, Inc. v. Moss, 207 U.S.P.Q. 973, 975 (W.D.N. C.1979).
4. The central inquiry in an action of this kind is "whether the defendant is passing off his goods or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Popular Bank of Fla. v. Banco Popular Puerto Rico
...regarding instances of customer confusion admissible under state of mind exception to hearsay rule); Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc., 589 F.Supp. 72, 76 (N.D.Tex.1984)(hearsay letters and statements of customers are admissible in evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 803(3) where they rev......
-
Ocean Bio-Chem v. Turner Network Television
...actions, not admissible to show callers' confusion between plaintiff's and defendant's goods); Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc., 589 F.Supp. 72, 76 (N.D. Tex.1984) (customer survey cards and public statements admissible to demonstrate customers' confusion regarding parties' serv......
-
Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc's B.R. Others, Inc.
...and has acquired secondary meaning and if its imitation creates a likelihood of consumer confusion. Id.; Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc., 589 F.Supp. 72, 77 (N.D.Tex.1984), aff'd, 783 F.2d 1062 (1986). We have applied this trade dress analysis in cases involving imitation of pa......
-
Taco Cabana Intern., Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc.
...of functionality, the law secures for the marketplace a latitude of competitive alternatives. See Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc., 589 F.Supp. 72, 77 (N.D.Tex.1984) (policy predicate for functionality doctrine is public interest in enhancing competition), aff'd without op., 783......
-
Evidence at the electronic frontier: introducing e-mail at trial in commercial litigation.
...service from plaintiff to be admissible as statements of then existing state of mind); Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 72, 76 (N.D. Tex. 1984) (holding hearsay letters and statements of customers admissible under then existing state of mind exception to prove actu......
-
Chapter 28 - § 28.5 • TRADEMARK LAW
...411 (N.D. Cal. 1982) (enjoining the use of packing crates to encase dining booths); Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 72 (N.D. Tex. 1984), aff'd without op., 783 F.2d 1062 (5th Cir. 1986) (preliminary injunction issued against copying of numerous non-functional desi......