Community of Roquefort v. William Faehndrich, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | Docket 27338.,No. 322,322 |
| Citation | 303 F.2d 494 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Parties | COMMUNITY OF ROQUEFORT, Societe Auxiliaire de L'Agriculture & de L'Industrie du Sud-ouest de La France, Societe Anonyme des Caves et des Producteurs Reunis de Roquefort, on behalf of self and all others similarly situated, and Frenex Distributors, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WILLIAM FAEHNDRICH, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
Frank O. Fredericks, New York City (Frank & Fredericks, New York City, and Lawrence W. Pollack, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Murray I. Sommer, New York City (Sommer & Sklar, New York City), for defendant-appellant.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SWAN and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
The Community of Roquefort (hereafter sometimes referred to as Community), a municipality in France, is the holder of a certification mark "Roquefort" for cheese, which is registered in the United States Patent Office under Section 4 of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1054. Together with a French cheese exporter, another French agent, and an American cheese packaging concern, the Community filed a complaint against William Faehndrich, Inc. (hereafter referred to as Faehndrich), a New York cheese importer. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Faehndrich was infringing the Community's "Roquefort" certification mark; and, in general, it sought to enjoin Faehndrich from selling cheese not produced in accordance with that mark but labeled or represented as "Imported Roquefort Cheese."1 Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. At the same time they announced that if relief were granted on the Community's cause of action for infringement, the other claims would be withdrawn. The defendant denied infringement, and filed a cross motion for summary judgment. From a judgment in favor of the Community of Roquefort, and the issuance of a permanent injunction against continued infringement of the certification mark, the defendant Faehndrich appeals.2
It appears that for centuries there has been produced and cured in the natural limestone caves in and about the municipality of Roquefort a sheep's milk blue-mold cheese,3 which has been marketed in this country for many years as "Roquefort Cheese." In an effort to protect themselves against unfair competition, producers of such French "Roquefort Cheese" frequently have asked our courts to prevent misleading use of the "Roquefort" designation. See, e. g., Douglas v. Mod-Urn Cheese Packing Co., Inc., 161 Misc. 21, 290 N.Y.S. 368 (Sup. Ct.1936); Douglas v. Newark Cheese Co., Inc., 153 Misc. 85, 274 N.Y.S. 406 (Sup.Ct.1934). For similar reasons the Community of Roquefort, in 1953, obtained a certification mark so that the term "Roquefort," as applied to cheese, would be used exclusively:
"* * * to indicate that the same has been manufactured from sheep\'s milk only, and has been cured in the natural caves of the Community of Roquefort, Department of Aveyron, France, in accordance with the historic methods and usages of production, curing and development which have been in vogue there for a long period of years."
Since that time the Community has been diligent in protecting the mark.
Nevertheless, in 1960, Faehndrich imported into the United States a quantity of sheep's milk blue-mold cheese, labeled "Imported Roquefort Cheese" (at Faehndrich's direction), which had been produced in Hungary and Italy. Of course, it was not (and could not be) produced by authority of the Community of Roquefort under its mark. When imported, Faehndrich's cheese was packaged in a manner clearly indicating the countries of origin. On the other hand, when Faehndrich prepared the cheese for resale, the labels prominently displaying the words "Product of Italy" and "Product of Hungary" were replaced with new wrappers printed "Imported Roquefort Cheese" and "Made from Pure Sheep's Milk Only," without any indication of origin. Hence, there was nothing on the wrappers which would suggest to the retail-buying public that Faehndrich's cheese came from Hungary or Italy.
In order to clairfy our discussion of the single question presented by this appeal, i. e., whether Judge Metzner was correct in granting the Community of Roquefort's motion for summary judgment, it will be helpful to summarize the law applicable to certification marks such as the mark involved in this case, and by way of explanation, to point out certain distinctions between trade-marks on the one hand, and certification marks on the other.
Until the Lanham Act of 1946, a geographical name could not be registered as a trade-mark. This prohibition operated to prevent a single producer from appropriating the name of a particular place or area in which he was located to the exclusion of other and similarly situated producers. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 80 U.S. 311, 20 L.Ed. 581 (1872). "If the name was to be found in an atlas * * *, that was sufficient to preclude registration." Robert, Commentary on the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C.A. following § 1024, 265, 271 (1948). Nevertheless, if a geographical name which had become distinctive of certain goods was registered by oversight, it was protected against infringement, Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 221 U.S. 580, 591-593, 31 S.Ct. 669, 55 L.Ed. 863 (1911); moreover, if the name acquired such new significance as an indication of origin of goods, i. e., a secondary meaning, its use was protected from unfair competition even though it could not be registered as a trade-mark. Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co., 179 U.S. 665, 674, 21 S.Ct. 270, 45 L.Ed. 365 (1901); Vandenburgh, Trademark Law and Procedure, §§ 4.60, 4.70 (1959).
Section 2(e) of the Lanham Act continued to prohibit registration of a geographical name as a trade-mark, if "when applied to the goods of the applicant it is primarily geographically descriptive * * *," 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052 (e) (2), unless such a name "has become distinctive of the applicant's goods * * *," 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(f). Under the Lanham Act, therefore, if a geographical name acquires a secondary meaning, it can be registered as a trade-mark. Vandenburgh, op. cit. supra.
In addition to this extension of trade-mark law, the Lanham Act created an entirely new registered mark which was denominated a "certification mark." 15 U.S.C.A. § 1054; Robert, op. cit. supra, at p. 270.
"The term `certification mark\' means a mark used upon or in connection with the products * * * of one or more persons other than the owner of the mark to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other characteristics of such goods * * *" 15 U.S.C.A. § 1127.
A geographical name does not require a secondary meaning in order to qualify for registration as a certification mark. It is true that section 1054 provides that certification marks are "subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable * * *." But section 1052(e) (2), which prohibits registration of names primarily geographically descriptive, specifically excepts "indications of regional origin" registrable under section 1054. Therefore, a geographical name may be registered as a certification mark even though it is primarily geographically descriptive.4 This distinction, i. e., that a geographical name cannot be registered as a trade-mark unless it has secondary meaning, but can be registered as a certification mark without secondary meaning, has significance. A trade-mark gives a producer exclusive rights; but a certification mark, owned by a municipality, such as Roquefort, must be made available without discrimination "to certify the goods * * * of any person who maintains the standards or conditions which such mark certifies." (Italics added.) 15 U.S.C.A. § 1064(d) (4). See 4 Callmann, Unfair Competition and Trade-Marks § 98.4(c) (2 ed. 1950).
On the other hand, a geographical name registered as a certification mark...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc.
...(1920); Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 138 U.S. 537, 547, 11 S.Ct. 396, 34 L.Ed. 997 (1891); Community of Roquefort v. William Faehndrich, Inc., 303 F.2d 494, 497 (2d Cir. 1962). 39 The surveys are not excludable per se under the hearsay rule, but each must satisfy the requirement......
-
Msf Holding Ltd. v. Fiduciary Trust Co. Intern., 03 Civ. 1818(PKL).
...unnecessary trials." Perma Research & Dev. Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir.1969) (quoting Cmty. of Roquefort v. William Faehndrich, Inc., 303 F.2d 494, 498 (2d Cir.1962)); see also IBM Poughkeepsie Employees Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 769, 771 (S.D......
-
Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., CIBA-GEIGY
...summary judgment is 'to discover whether one side has no real support for its version of the facts,' Community of Roquefort v. William Faehndrich, Inc., 303 F.2d 494, 498 (2d Cir.1962), and thereby to avoid unnecessary trials. We recognize that summary judgment was never intended to be a su......
-
American Optical Corp. v. North American Optical
...a remedy where warranted would be to eviscerate an important procedure provided by the federal rules. Community of Roquefort v. William Faehndrich, Inc., 303 F.2d 494 (2d Cir. 1962). The principles underlying these two policies have guided my consideration of each of plaintiff's four A. Unf......