Akron-Overland Tire Co. v. Willys-Overland Co.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2628. |
| Citation | 273 F. 674 |
| Parties | AKRON-OVERLAND TIRE CO. v. WILLYS-OVERLAND CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Robert G. Thach, of New York City, and Andrew C. Gray, of Wilmington, Del., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
In this case, the court below, on hearing, being of opinion, as recited in its decree, 'that the use of the word 'Overland' by the defendant in its name, in the transaction of its business and in the threatened sale of its stock and securities, is calculated to lead the public to believe that the goods, stocks, and securities of the defendant are the goods, stocks, and securities of the complainant, and that thereby the complainant is irreparably injured,' and the complainant having given an adequate indemnity bond, issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from using the word 'Overland' pending the further order of the court. The facts of the case and the reasons and adjudged cases in support of the court's action, are set forth in its opinion printed in 268 F. 151.
A study of the record shows that in the grant of a preliminary injunction there was no abuse by the court of the discretionary power vested in it upon such a showing of facts and circumstances as is there disclosed. We note the earnest contention of defendant's counsel that the case was one where there could be no unfair competition on the part of the defendant, because the defendant was not in business competition where the parties were not in competition in the same kind of business. In view of this contention we deem it proper to say the matter has had our serious consideration, and we find no ground to convict the court below of error, either in its use of authorities or in other regards; for, while it may be conceded that the plaintiff company manufactures automobiles and the defendant does not, and while the plaintiff does not make or sell automobile tires, and the defendant retreads and sells tires, and in exact terms the two do not compete in these particular things, yet the fact remains that the business of both is so connected with automobiles that the public, in buying the stocks, securities, and retread tires of the defendant company, by the use of the word 'Overland' in connection therewith, will, by such descriptive word, be led to believe it is buying property or articles owned or dealt in by the plaintiff or one of its subsidiary companies. That the plaintiffs had in the word 'Overland' a good will of high reputation and great value in connection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California
...bottom of our own decision in Peninsular Chemical Co. v. Levinson, 6 Cir., 247 F. 658, 159 C. C.A. 560, and of Akron-Overland Tire Co. v. Willys -Overland Co., 3 Cir., 273 F. 674; Imperial Cotto Sales Co. v. N. K. Fairbanks Co., 50 App.D.C. 250, 270 F. 686; Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney &......
-
Philco Corporation v. Phillips Mfg. Co.
...Malt Products Corporation, supra; Del Monte Special Food Co. v. California Packing Corporation, supra. (b) Akron-Overland Tire Co. v. Willys-Overland Co., 3 Cir., 273 F. 674 (tires, automobiles). (c) Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 59 S. Ct. 109, 83 L.Ed. 73; Peninsular C......
-
Ball v. American Trial Lawyers Assn.
...Cal.App.2d 357, 364, 323 P.2d 787; Stork Restaurant v. Sahati (9 Cir. 1948) Supra, 166 F.2d 348, 364; Akron-Overland Tire Co. v. Willys-Overland Co. (3 Cir. 1921) 273 F. 674, 676--677; 1 Nims, § 57, p. 183; 2 Nims, § 366g, p. 1153.) Were there other combinations or names of equal utility to......
-
Robert Bruce, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...247 F. 407 (2d Cir. 1917), where plaintiff sold flour and defendant sold pancake syrup and sugar creams; Akron-Overland Tire Co. v. Willys Overland Co., 273 F. 674 (3d Cir. 1921), where the plaintiff sold automobiles and the defendant sold retreaded tires; Gant of New Haven Inc. v. Chez Boy......