Admiral Corp. v. Penco, Inc., Civ. No. 5036.
| Decision Date | 26 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 5036. |
| Citation | 101 F. Supp. 677,91 USPQ 316 |
| Parties | ADMIRAL CORP. v. PENCO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Charles Shepard, Rochester, N. Y., Wilkinson, Huxley, Byron & Hume, Chicago, Ill., Gerrit P. Groen, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for plaintiff.
Marvin L. Falk, Rochester, N. Y., Caesar & Rivise, Philadelphia, Pa., A. D. Caesar, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for defendant.
1. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation having its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
2. Defendant is a New York corporation and has a place of business at 30 South Avenue, Rochester, New York.
3. This suit arises under the trade-mark laws of the United States for infringement of registered trade-marks and for unfair competition.
4. Plaintiff was organized in 1934. At that time it took over assets from Columbia Radio Corporation which included the trade-mark "Admiral" and the good will connected therewith. Plaintiff is distributing and selling a variety of household appliances which include radio and television receiver sets, radio and phonograph combinations, dehumidifiers, electric ranges and electric refrigerators. It has also sold other household equipment and appliances from time to time.
5. In all of its advertising and sales activities plaintiff has used and is using "Admiral" as its trade-mark.
6. Among the registrations for the trade-mark "Admiral" which plaintiff has secured in the United States Patent Office are the following:
No. 273,655 403,192 407,816 409,912 412,039 440,438
Plaintiff has also registered "Admiral" as a trade-mark in other principal countries throughout the world.
7. It appears from prima facie proof that since 1934 plaintiff's sales of household appliances bearing the trade-mark "Admiral" have approximated three-quarters of a billion dollars and that such sales for 1950 were in excess of $230,000,000.
8. Plaintiff advertises and sells all its products under the trade-mark "Admiral".
9. It appears from prima facie proof that since 1934 plaintiff has expended for advertising a sum in excess of $25,000,000. In all this advertising the trade-mark "Admiral" has been the dominant feature. Plaintiff's current advertising expenditures are approximately $8,000,000 per year.
10. Plaintiff uses every popular means of advertising media which includes radio and television broadcasts locally and on national hookups, extensive daily newspaper and national advertising, sales promotion literature, catalogues, and the like.
11. Defendant sells a variety of household appliances including electric vacuum cleaners and electric sewing machines.
12. Defendant advertises through local newspapers and by radio. Defendant's advertisements usually feature rebuilt Electrolux vacuum cleaners for approximately $12.95 and rebuilt Singer sewing machines for approximately $24.95.
13. Defendant operates several stores throughout the State of New York in the cities of Binghamton, Rochester, Elmira and Syracuse. It employs a number of salesmen at each store to call on prospective customers, particularly those who respond to its advertisements.
14. Defendant has offered for sale and has sold a large number of electric vacuum cleaners and electric sewing machines under the trade-mark "Admiral".
15. Defendant in response to inquiries based on its advertisements calls on potential customers and displays the rebuilt vacuum cleaner or sewing machine advertised. If the customer fails to show an interest in purchasing the rebuilt device its salesmen offer to demonstrate new vacuum cleaners or sewing machines bearing the trade-mark "Admiral". It appears from prima facie proof that it is the policy of the defendant to advertise only rebuilt Electrolux vacuum cleaners and rebuilt Singer sewing machines and never to advertise Admiral sewing machines or Admiral vacuum cleaners. Currently its sales of vacuum cleaners and sewing machines in its Rochester store under the trade-mark Admiral are approximately five times as great as its sales of vacuum cleaners and sewing machines under the marks "Electrolux" and "Singer" respectively.
16. Its salesmen have called upon a number of customers in and about Rochester, New York, in response to inquiries by such customers to its advertisements offering rebuilt Electrolux vacuum cleaners and rebuilt Singer sewing machines. Several customers so approached by its salesmen when shown either the Electrolux vacuum cleaner or the Singer sewing machine upon expressing disinterest in these appliances were immediately offered a new electric vacuum cleaner or a new electric sewing machine bearing the trade-mark "Admiral". Such customers were told or it was clearly implied to them that these appliances bearing the trade-mark "Admiral" originated with or were manufactured by Admiral Corporation. In other instances these customers, when they inquired as to the origin of the appliances offered by defendant which bore the trade-mark "Admiral", were assured that such appliances originated with the "television people", or "the Admiral Company", or similar statements were made of the plain import that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Admiral Corp. v. Penco, Inc.
...any connection between its goods and plaintiff and to take other steps to guard against deception of customers. Admiral Corp. v. Penco, Inc., D.C.W.D. N.Y., 101 F.Supp. 677. Then after a full trial he eventually found for the plaintiff, D.C.W.D.N.Y., 106 F.Supp. 1015, granting it a permanen......
-
Admiral Corporation v. Price Vacuum Stores
...plaintiff's registered trade-mark "Admiral." Plaintiff was held not entitled to an accounting for profits. Admiral Corp. v. Penco, Inc., D.C.1951, 101 F.Supp. 677; Id., D.C. 1952, 106 F.Supp. 1015, affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1953, 203 F.2d 517. The injunction r......
-
Gaylord Products v. Golding Wave Clip Co.
...to abandon. National Lead Co. v. Wolfe, 9 Cir., 223 F.2d 195. In this circuit, we are bound by the reasoning of Admiral Corp. v. Penco, Inc., D.C., 101 F.Supp. 677, affirmed 2 Cir., 203 F.2d 517. In accordance with the above opinion, therefore, we make the Findings of Fact 1. Plaintiff is a......
-
Elcon Manufacturing Co. v. Elcon Manufacturing Co., Civ. A. No. 13073.
...should be denied because the defendants do not compete with it directly. In one of the leading cases on the subject, Admiral Corp. v. Penco, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 677, Id., D.C., 106 F.Supp. 1015, affirmed 2 Cir., 203 F.2d 517, the Court held that despite the fact that the plaintiff did not sel......