Continental Ins. Co. v. Continental Fire Ass'n
| Decision Date | 10 October 1899 |
| Citation | 96 F. 846 |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL INS. CO. v. CONTINENTAL FIRE ASS'N. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Armstrong & Hanger, for defendant.
The complainant, the Continental Insurance Company, a New York corporation, having its principal place of business in the city of New York, brings its bill against the Continental Fire Association, a Texas corporation, having its principal place of business at Ft. Worth Tex., seeking to enjoin the latter from doing business under the name in which it is incorporated. The complainant alleges that it was incorporated in the year 1852 as a fire insurance company and that it has been in business ever since that time, and has built up a large and lucrative fire insurance business over the country at large and in the state of Texas; that during all of the time it has been in business it has, at a great outlay and expense, extensively advertised its business in the country at large, and in the state of Texas, and maintained many efficient and diligent agents, and, by great labor, active work, and close attention to business, caused its name to become widely known to the public in connection with the business of fire insurance; that, by the use of strict integrity and honest business methods, it has built up an extensive business, of great commercial value, and that it is entitled to reap the pecuniary benefits and advantages naturally attendant thereon; that such reputation is necessarily and inseparably connected with the name under which it has done business and by which it has been known. It alleges that the defendant incorporated under a general law of the state of Texas, in the year 1899, as the 'Continental Fire Association,' and has proceeded to do a general fire insurance business under its corporate name; that the name used by the defendant, by reason of the similarity of the same to that used by the complainant, is calculated to deceive the public, and people desiring to patronize the complainant, into the belief that the defendant is one and the same corporation with complainant, whereby the business of the complainant will be greatly and irreparably injured and that the defendant will, in some measure, reap the benefit of the complainant's good will, and the business and custom acquired by it, prior to the existence of the defendant corporation; that the name selected and chosen by the defendant was fixed by it with the express design of diverting the good will and business of the complainant; that the result of such selection and advertisement of its business by the defendant will divert and injure the business of the complainant; that the public has been deceived, and are continuing to be deceived, by the defendant using the name selected by it, and, if it is permitted to continue to use said name, the complainant will suffer great and irreparable injury. The complainant tenders affidavits in support of the allegations of its bill, which abundantly support its claim to a long-continued and extensive business in the state of Texas, and that this business was created and built up in the name of the 'Continental Insurance Company of the City of New York. ' The affidavits offered tending to show that confusion will arise in event the defendant is permitted to do business under the name in which it is incorporated, and that the business of the complainant will be diverted to the defendant, and that the defendant will reap the benefits of complainant's expenditures of money, advertising, and industry, are meager, and do not, in the opinion of the court, fully substantiate the allegations of complainant's bill.
The defendant answers, and, among other things, denies any wrongful intent in the selection of the name under which it is incorporated, and makes profert of some of its literature and also some of the policies issued by the complainant, showing that the defendant is advertising and seeking to do business as the 'Continental Fire Association of Ft. Worth, Texas,' and that the complainant is doing business as the 'Continental Insurance Company of the City of New York.'
The distinguishing feature of the names of the two incorporated companies is the word 'Continen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co.
... ... 540, ... 546, 11 Sup.Ct. 625, 35 L.Ed. 247; Continental ... no claim that the words whose use is enjoined ... 166, 32 L.Ed. 535; Continental Ins. Co. v. Continental ... Fire Ass'n (C.C.) 96 F. 846; ... ...
-
Allen B. Wrisley Co. v. Iowa Soap Co.
... ... 598, ... 602, 9 Sup.Ct. 166, 42 L.Ed. 535; Continental Ins. Co. v ... Continental Fire Ass'n (C.C.) 96 F. 846; ... ...
-
SAN FRANCISCO ASS'N, ETC. v. Industrial Aid for Blind
...more. The principle announced by the Supreme Court in the Lackawanna case is even more pointedly stated in Continental Ins. Co. v. Continental Fire Ass'n, C.C., 96 F. 846, loc. cit. "The word `continental' is in general and prevalent use, and means pertaining to or characteristic of a conti......
-
Continental Ins. Co. v. Continental Fire Ass'n
...to restrain the defendant from using the word 'Continental' in its corporate name in transacting insurance business in the state of Texas. 96 F. 846. complainant, the Continental Insurance Company, is a corporation created under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal office a......