649 F.2d 94 (2nd Cir. 1981), 628, Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Kooltone, Inc.

• Docket Nº: 628, Docket 80-7797.
• Citation: 649 F.2d 94
• Party Name: 217 U.S.P.Q. 11 QUAKER STATE OIL REFINING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KOOLTONE, INC., Therm-X Industries Inc., and Therm-X Chemical and Oil Corp., Defendants-Appellants.
• Case Date: April 10, 1981
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 94

649 F.2d 94 (2nd Cir. 1981)

217 U.S.P.Q. 11

QUAKER STATE OIL REFINING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KOOLTONE, INC., Therm-X Industries Inc., and Therm-X

Chemical and Oil Corp., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 628, Docket 80-7797.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

April 10, 1981

Argued April 2, 1981.

^[*]

Opinion May 11, 1981.

Robert G. Del Gadio, Garden City, N. Y., for defendants-appellants.

Page 95

Harold Haidt, New York City (Brooks, Haidt, Haffner & Delahunty, New York City, Charles G. Mueller, Edward G. Fenwick, Jr., B. Parker Livingston, Jr., Mason, Fenwick & Lawrence, Washington, D. C., Gerald W. Callahan, Oil City, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, Van GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge and MALETZ, Judge, United States Court of International Trade. ^[**]

PER CURIAM:

Kooltone, Inc., Therm-X Industries, Inc., and Therm-X Chemical and Oil Corp. appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York after a jury trial before George C. Pratt, J. Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation sued appellants for, inter alia, trademark infringement, unfair competition by means of simulation of trade dress, false description of the nature and quality of their merchandise, and dilution of trademark value. The gravamen of the complaint was that appellants had imitated characteristics of the cans in which Quaker State sold its brand of motor oil, misleading potential Quaker State customers and injuring Quaker State's business and reputation. Appellants filed a counter-claim against Quaker State alleging violation of the antitrust laws, unfair competition and malicious prosecution, but these were dismissed either before trial or before the case was submitted to the jury. The jury then made detailed findings, in a special verdict, under which Quaker State was awarded $30,000 in appellants' profits to be returned, $2 in compensatory damages, and $55,000 in punitive damages. Quaker State later moved for attorney's fees, which Judge Pratt granted in the sum of $50,000.

Although appellants press numerous arguments in their brief, their appeal is completely without merit. Appellants argue that Quaker State's claims for damages should have been dismissed for want of sufficient proof. Appellants claim that since no estimate of their profits was ever adduced...