Cincinnati & Suburban Bell Telephone Co. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 13 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 705.,705. |
| Parties | CINCINNATI & SUBURBAN BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. BROWN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
J. W. Heintzman and James N. Ramsey, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Allen & Allen, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants.
The court is of the opinion that under the circumstances a preliminary injunction should issue. I do not think that this situation is comparable with clubs, establishments, etc., having their own lists of addresses and telephone numbers and I do not think it is comparable with the Williams Directory. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that a canvasser for the Williams Directory gets the names of everybody in the house, their residence and business addresses, and in some instances phone numbers, and puts them down on the subscription or information card.
Whether or not, strictly speaking, the telephone company is entitled, under the strict rules of copyright law, to this injunction, I am not going to pass on at this time. I think there is somebody else interested in this proceeding; that is, the public. It has been stated that the Telephone Company is a quasi public corporation. The telephone has ceased to be a luxury and has become a necessity in all business houses and in substantially all homes; everybody that can afford it has a telephone. Therefore, to get out a list of this kind and represent that it is an accurate list of the numbers in the telephone book, no doubt, does lead to confusion and results in extra maintenance cost that has been referred to by the officers of the company, and it is just that much more expense that every subscriber has to pay for the maintenance of his telephone service, and, if books like these issued by defendants continued to be gotten out, more operators would have to be employed to take care of the confusion caused, and, of course, the telephone company, in order to cover this expense, along with other added expenses, would apply for higher rates, and subscribers would have to pay higher rates. I understand that this is only a drop in the bucket, but drop upon drop fills a bucket; so it is here that all these things accumulate, and it puts the burden on the public, and the telephone has become such a useful instrument that it ceases — it has long ceased to be just a matter for the convenience of a few. Everybody uses it more or less, sooner or later.
The defendants — I have no criticism to offer as to either of them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Bell T. Co. v. Nationwide Ind. Dir. Serv., Inc.
...work. Id., 91 F.2d at 486 Other cases supporting the conclusion reached by the court in Leon are Cincinnati and Surburban Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown, 44 F.2d 631 (D.C.S.D.Ohio 1930); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F.Supp. 425 (D.C.S.D.Fla. 1940); Consumers Union of U. S., Inc. v.......
-
New York Times Co. v. Roxbury Data Interface, Inc.
...the appropriation of telephone and other directory listings. E.g., Leon v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., supra; Cincinnati & Suburban Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown, 44 F.2d 631 (S.D.Ohio 1930); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F.Supp. 425 (S.D.Fla.1940); Sammons v. Larkin, 38 F.Supp. 649 (......
-
Rural Tel. Service Co. v. Feist Publications, Inc.
...900 (W.D.Ark.1974); Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F.Supp. 425 (S.D.Fla.1940); Cincinnati and Suburban Bell Telephone Co. v. Brown, 44 F.2d 631 (S.D.Ohio 1930); Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Publishing Co., 146 F. 332 (D.Conn.1906). The court does no......