Alberto-Culver Company v. Andrea Dumon, Inc., 18892

• Decision Date: 29 August 1972
• Docket Number: 18893.,No. 18892,18892
• Citation: 466 F.2d 705
• Parties: ALBERTO-CULVER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. ANDREA DUMON, INC., Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

466 F.2d 705 (1972)

ALBERTO-CULVER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. ANDREA DUMON, INC., Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 18892, 18893.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 5, 1972.

Decided August 29, 1972.

Robert D. Silver, Melrose Park, Ill., Beverly W. Pattishall, Robert M. Newbury, Raymond I. Geraldson, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant; Pattishall, McAuliffe & Hofstetter, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.

David Chaimovitz, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before PELL, STEVENS and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges.

STEVENS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff's principal argument is that defendant's president gave false testimony at his deposition and therefore the district court should have ruled against the defendant on the merits even if plaintiff's claims were otherwise defective. Counts alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution were dismissed at the close of plaintiff's case; at the end of the trial the district court sustained only a part of plaintiff's copyright claim. Counter-claims alleging monopolization of the market for feminine hygiene deodorants and abuse of process were dismissed as insufficient in law. Both parties have appealed. They raise about fourteen issues. On all issues except one, we affirm.

I.

In 1966 plaintiff began to market a product which it describes as "a deodorant spray for feminine hygiene." As the text of its label explains, the spray "is made especially for the external vaginal area." Plaintiff's product was the first of this character to be marketed on a nationwide basis. It selected the initials "FDS" ("feminine deodorant spray") as the name of the product and created an original label. The label was copyrighted and the trademark "FDS" was registered. The product is widely advertised; its sales have steadily and impressively increased.

In 1967 defendant also decided to market a deodorant spray for feminine hygiene. Defendant's president decided to call it "Personal Spray." He employed an artist to design a container "to convey the same image and thought as the FDS can." The artist was given an FDS can so he would have a better idea of how to go about designing the Personal Spray can. He did design such a can, defendant marketed its product and, in due course, this litigation ensued.

A side-by-side comparison of the FDS can and the Personal Spray can reveals substantial differences between the two; they are comparable, however, in that the artwork on both clearly indicates— even without reading the fine print— that the product is intended to be used privately by women rather than by men. The fine print on both labels conveys the same basic image with minor variations.

Plaintiff does not question defendant's right to market a product of this kind or to use a label which will— without requiring the prospective purchaser to scrutinize the fine print—convey a message indicating generally what the product is supposed to accomplish. Plaintiff has no right to a monopoly of labels which convey the same general image and thought as the FDS can.

The district court's findings carefully and thoroughly analyzed the similarities and differences between the two containers. Eliminating the court's detailed discussion, we quote from those findings:

"The major elements of the front of each label, i. e., size, color, shape of enclosed central background, contents of enclosed area, and border design, are distinct from each other when each element is considered separately. Further, the overall impression imparted by the front of one label is dissimilar to that imparted by the front of the other label.

* * * * * *

"The colored art work at the top of the back of each label is dissimilar as to size, color, shape, contents, and label position."

The court concluded that the commercial aspects of plaintiff's label were copyrightable but that the part of the language containing directions for use was purely descriptive and therefore not copyrightable. On the subject of infringement, the court stated:

"The test of copyright infringement is whether or not an unauthorized party has copied the copyright work of another. Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Newman Brothers, Inc., 373 F.2d 905, 906 (6th Cir. 1967); Austin v. Steiner, 207 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D. Ill.1962). Not only must the alleged infringer have had the opportunity to copy the protected design, the similarities between the two designs must be so substantial and obvious that there could be a finding of actual copying or appropriation. Prestige Fabrics, Inc. v. Universal Mfg. Corp., 304 F. Supp. 903, 905 (S.D.N.Y.1969); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 295 F.Supp. 1366, 1369 (S.D.N. Y.1969).

"There being no evidence as to any actual confusion resulting from the front of the Personal Spray label, no evidence indicating that ordinary lay observers find the FDS and Personal Spray labels similar, and this Court having found that the fronts of the two labels are dissimilar not only as to various elements of composition, but in overall appeal, we find that defendant has not copied the front of the FDS label. Regardless of defendant\'s access and intent, there was no copying and no infringement as to the front of the FDS label. Milworth Converting Corp. v. Slifka, 276 F.2d 443, 445 (2d Cir. 1960).

"As to the descriptive language on the back of the label, even if we found that the language was copyrightable, we would have found no infringement. Plaintiff has suggested that the label of another competing product, Massengill Feminine Hygiene Deodorant Spray, discloses a method of promoting a similar product without copying plaintiff\'s text. (Plaintiff\'s Post-Trial Brief RE: Copyright Infringement, at 8.) An examination of that label reveals that it invokes more of the language and images found on the FDS label including dryness, freshness, gentleness and psychological security than does the Personal Spray label. Thus, if the Massengill descriptive language was not improper, neither could the Personal Spray language have been found so.

"On the other hand, we find that the validly copyrighted phrase `is the most personal sort of deodorant\' appearing at the top of the back side of the FDS label was infringed by the first line of the first paragraph on the back of the Personal Spray label, which line states that Personal Spray is `the deodorant of the most personal kind.\' The language on both labels is so substantially similar that we find defendant copied that part of the FDS label. We take judicial notice that other similar products invoke the concept of personalness, but not in the same sense, nor in the same manner. For instance, Naturally Feminine talks of `personal feminine hygiene\' and Bidette Mist speaks of a `very personal problem.\'"

The court enjoined defendant from using the infringing phrase and awarded damages of $500 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101(b).

II.

Apart from plaintiff's argument that the false deposition testimony of defendant's president required a different result, it is quite clear that the record adequately supports the district court findings and conclusions relating to infringement.

Plaintiff seems to argue that defendant's intent to convey the same general image and thought is sufficient proof of copying, and that the district court erred in engrafting the additional requirements of "access" and "substantial similarity" onto a simple test of whether there was copying. Of course, the "access" requirement is of no particular import in this case, since there is no question that defendant had access to plaintiff's product. And we think a mere attempt to copy plaintiff's conception did not constitute "copying" if the attempt was so unsuccessful that there was either no substantial similarity or merely duplication of concepts in the public domain. Since plaintiff's basic idea for a specialized product was in the public domain, the fact that defendant's label expressed that idea did not constitute infringement.

As far as the trademark infringement and unfair competition is concerned, we agree with plaintiff that the absence of proof of actual confusion is not necessarily fatal to its case; that the side-by-side comparison would not necessarily be controlling if there were other evidence of confusion; and that letter trademarks may be more easily confused than word trademarks. Nevertheless, we think the district court's findings adequately establish that the danger of confusion is sufficiently remote as not to amount to a "likelihood." Certainly the court's findings on the trademark claim are not clearly erroneous.

Plaintiff also argues that, in any event, the evidence established a likelihood of "dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark" within the meaning of the Illinois Trademark Statute, Ill. Rev.Stat., Ch. 140, § 22. That statute affords protection against use of a trade name by a non-competitor as well as by competitors. Polaroid Corp. v. Polaraid, Inc., 319 F.2d 830, 836-837 (7th Cir. 1963); Spangler Candy Co. v. Crystal Pure Candy Co., 235 F.Supp. 18, 23 (N. D.Ill.1954), affirmed, 353 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1966). Since plaintiff and defendant are competitors, there would be no need to rely on the dilution statute if there were a substantial similarity between the two labels or a "likelihood" of confusion. Conversely, without such similarity or likelihood, there is no greater right to relief under that provision than on traditional infringement grounds. Plaintiff's "dilution" argument is without merit.

III.

In a pretrial deposition Bernard Malits, defendant's president, was asked about his meeting with the artist who designed the Personal Spray container. His version of that meeting differed in three material respects from the account of the meeting given in uncontradicted testimony by two witnesses at the trial. According to their testimony, (1) four people were at the meeting, (2) Malits gave an FDS can to the...