Future Farmers of America v. Romack, 11013.

• Citation: 211 F.2d 925
• Decision Date: 07 April 1954
• Docket Number: No. 11013.,11013.
• Parties: FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA v. ROMACK.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

211 F.2d 925 (1954)

FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA v. ROMACK.

No. 11013.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

April 7, 1954.

C. Robert Mathis, Washington, D. C., Thomas A. Graham, Danville, Ill., Millard E. Tydings, Arthur J. Cerra, Davies, Richberg, Tydings, Beebe & Landa, Washington, D. C., Graham, Wise & Meyer, Danville, Ill., of counsel, for appellant.

Robert Z. Hickman, Danville, Ill., Bookwalter, Carter, Gunn & Hickman, Danville, Ill., of counsel, for appellees.

Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and SWAIM and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Future Farmers of America, a corporation, plaintiff, filed its complaint in the District Court against the defendants. Its action is based upon alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from using plaintiff's trademarked insignia and emblem without its consent and also seeks for an accounting of profits, damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants having filed an answer, the court heard evidence on a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, by agreement of counsel, was considered as evidence upon the final hearing of the case. The court thereupon made findings of fact and conclusions of law, filed an opinion, 114 F.Supp. 796, and entered an order permanently enjoining the defendants from using the name "Future Farmers of America" or the letters "F.F.A." and the registered trade-marks of Future Farmers of America, "without the authorization of Future Farmers of America, or its duly authorized chapters, or associations of chapters", and directing each party to pay its or their own costs.

On plaintiff's appeal from said order it assigns as errors relied upon, the District Court's

(1) "erroneous conclusion that Section 16 of plaintiff\'s corporate charter grants any state association or any local chapter of plaintiff equal rights of ownership in the trademarks registered and owned by plaintiff, with power and authority to permit defendants or others to employ said trademarks in their manufacturing processes and to sell products bearing said trademarks;"

(2) "failure to grant an unqualified and unrestricted injunction to plaintiff which would preclude defendants from using said trademarks without first obtaining permission from plaintiff corporation, the registered owner;"

(3) "failure to award an accounting of profits and damages on all sales of defendants\' products bearing or incorporating the registered trademarks of plaintiff;" and

(4) "failure to award reasonable attorneys\' fees and costs to plaintiff."

This court's answers to the following questions will be determinative of the case in this court:

1. Was the sole and exclusive right to use the name of Future Farmers of America and the initials F.F.A., as representing an agricultural membership organization, and such seals, emblems and badges as the plaintiff may lawfully adopt, vested exclusively in the plaintiff under its charter, or was that right shared by the plaintiff and the Texas association of chapters of Future Farmers of America, in such manner that the Texas association could grant to defendants the right to such use in Texas, for the purpose of selling jackets, T-shirts and other items bearing the trademarked emblem and insignia of Future Farmers of America?

2. If the latter, was such authorization granted by the Texas association to defendants?

Plaintiff is a corporation chartered by an act of the United States Congress, 36 U.S.C.A. §§ 271-291; Pub.Law 740, 81st Cong., 2nd Sess., Ch. 823, Aug. 30, 1950. It is the owner of the trade-marks in question.

After its incorporation plaintiff conducted a supply service in connection with which it published a catalogue illustrating its merchandise consisting of T-shirts, jackets, neckties, shirts, and other items. All of these had the emblems and trademarks in question upon them.

The defendants, with offices in Danville, Illinois, are in the business of supplying various groups and organizations with jackets, T-shirts and other merchandise.

The District Court found that in 1951 the defendants entered into an agreement, referred to by the court as a "deal", with the Texas association permitting defendants to sell jackets, T-shirts and other items bearing the Future Farmers of America trademarked emblem and insignia, and since that time defendants have sold substantial quantities of these items in Texas, in connection with which defendants paid the Texas association a 10% royalty on all of these sales, and in return the association published free advertisements of defendants' products in its official magazine.

Defendants have made a few sales in insignificant amounts outside of Texas, but in this court no point is made by either party as to these sales.

The relevant...