Altech Industries, Inc. v. Al Tech Specialty Steel, Civ. A. No. 81-226.

• Court: United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
• Citation: 542 F. Supp. 53
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-226.
• Parties: ALTECH INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. AL TECH SPECIALTY STEEL CORPORATION and GATX Corporation, Defendants.
• Decision Date: 25 June 1982

542 F. Supp. 53

ALTECH INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
AL TECH SPECIALTY STEEL CORPORATION and GATX Corporation, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 81-226.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

June 25, 1982.

Harvey S. Kronfeld and John J. Marshall of Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Jack B. Blumenfeld and Douglas E. Whitney of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Del., for defendants, Norman H. Zivin of Cooper, Dunham, Clark, Griffin & Moran, New York City, of counsel.

OPINION

STEEL, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff, ALTECH Industries, Inc. (hereinafter "plaintiff") brought the action

542 F. Supp. 54

against defendant, Al Tech Specialty Steel Corporation (hereinafter "defendant Al Tech") and defendant GATX (hereinafter "GATX"). Plaintiff and defendant Al Tech are Delaware corporations and defendant GATX is a New York corporation. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in Count I arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the Lanham Act; in Count II under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del.C. 1953, § 2536, 55 Del.Laws c. 36; and in Count III under the ancillary power of the Court to adjudicate common law unfair competition claims

The complaint charges the defendant Al Tech with trade name infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin.

GATX has moved to dismiss the complaint against it under Rule 12(b)(2) because of lack of personal jurisdiction over it under the Delaware "long-arm" statute:

The complaint alleges:

The plaintiff was incorporated on September 3, 1974. Its business consists primarily of designing, manufacturing, installing and selling apparatus for use with large vertical liquid storage tanks, including internal floating decks, aluminum roofs, peripheral seals, and related equipment. In 1974 plaintiff began using and has continuously marketed and promoted its products and services in the United States under the prominently displayed trademark "ALTECH" with an ALTECH logo. As a result plaintiff's products have gained nationwide acceptance and are presently sold to numerous customers throughout the United States, including Delaware. Through much effort and substantial expense plaintiff has earned in the minds of its actual and potential customers and suppliers a reputation as a provider of high-quality products, reliable service, fair dealing and general business efficiency.

Sometime after plaintiff adopted the trade name and logo "ALTECH" the defendant Al Tech began manufacturing, promoting and selling in interstate commerce various steel products, including steel wire, tubing and bars made of stainless steel and other steel alloys under the prominently displayed trade name and logo "Al Tech." As a result plaintiff and its customers and others in the trade have been misled by the confusing similarity between plaintiff's trade name and that of defendant and have been caused to believe that the plaintiff ALTECH and the defendant Al Tech are the same or at least affiliated companies.

In April, 1981, the defendant GATX, a holding company with various subsidiaries, acquired all of the outstanding stock of defendant Al Tech. That acquisition has greatly enhanced the potential for damage to plaintiff's business and good will and the likelihood of confusion in the trade arising out of the confusing similarity between plaintiff's and defendant's trade name. The complaint, among other things, seeks an injunction against such use by defendants.

Plaintiff's claim is basically against the defendant Al Tech for infringing plaintiff's trade name ALTECH. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that GATX has itself or any of its subsidiaries, except defendant Al Tech, ever used plaintiff's name or its logo in its or their business or otherwise. The only charges against GATX are found in paragraphs 14, 16 and 18 of the complaint. Central to paragraphs 14 and 18 is the allegation that the use by defendant of plaintiff's trade...