George O'Day Associates, Inc. v. Talman Corporation
| Decision Date | 07 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2646. |
| Citation | 206 F. Supp. 297 |
| Parties | GEORGE O'DAY ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. TALMAN CORPORATION and Talman Bigelow, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Robert B. Russell, of Russell, Chittick & Pfund, Boston, Mass., Benjamin A. Smith, of Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Providence, R. I., John L. Saltonstall, Jr., of Hill, Barlow, Goodale & Adams, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
John H. Chafee, Edward F. Hindle, of Edwards & Angell, Providence, R. I., for defendant.
This is an action for alleged unfair competition and for alleged violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a). Jurisdiction of this Court exists under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 and 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125 (a).
From the evidence adduced at the trial it appears that during the year 1957 the plaintiff (now known as O'Day Corporation), being desirous of placing upon the market a safe family type fiberglass sailboat with planing ability, engaged the services of a well known designer to design such a boat; that at this time there were already several other makes and models of planing sailboats being offered for sale to the public; that thereafter, in August 1958, plaintiff began to make and sell a sailboat based upon the plans of said designer under the name of the "Day Sailer"; that it was ordinarily sold without a bracket or fixture on its stern to accommodate an outboard motor, but that at the option of a purchaser such a bracket or fixture was available at an added cost; and that said sailboat so designed enjoyed early substantial commercial success and has continued to do so.
In April 1959, the defendant Talman Bigelow, who had had some previous experience in the business of building and repairing sailboats, entered the employ of the plaintiff as assistant to its president in the solution of sales problems and in the coordination of activities between its factory and its dealers. He remained so employed until October 1959 when he was discharged for reasons not related to this case. While so employed he became fully aware of the plaintiff's advertising program, the sales potential of its sailboat, the identity of its dealers and plaintiff's financial arrangements with them, the extent of the commercial success of the "Day Sailer", and also to some extent with its deficiencies and complaints as to its alleged deficiencies.
After his discharge and while unemployed, the defendant Talman Bigelow began to consider the idea of establishing his own business to manufacture, buy and sell fiberglass planing sailboats which would be constructed and designed to carry an outboard motor without bracket or fixture, and without sacrificing the sailing potential of such a boat. Before taking any action in that direction he went to Florida where he spent about three weeks in a friend's factory observing and studying the construction of fiberglass outboard motor boats and their costs. Subsequently, in February 1960, he caused the defendant corporation to be organized for the purpose of engaging in the business of building, buying and selling sailboats. Shortly thereafter he purchased a "Day Sailer" from one of the plaintiff's dealers. He proceeded immediately to have certain changes and alterations made in its hull and deck. As modified, this sailboat was photographed and this photograph was used in initial advertising material describing the sailboat which the defendant corporation was offering for sale under the name of "Explorer". This initial advertising material indicated the defendant corporation was doing business under the name of "Sailstar Boats" and set forth the location of its place of business in Warwick, Rhode Island.
It further appears that after the defendants had altered the hull of said "Day Sailer" so that it would carry an outboard motor without bracket or fixture for its attachment, and would have a different sheer they made a mold of said hull which was used for the construction of the hull of the "Explorer". In addition to the changes made in the shape and dimensions of said hull, the defendants incorporated in the "Explorer" numerous features not present in the "Day Sailer", such as a self-bailing cockpit, reinforcing members in the bottom of its hull to eliminate flexibility, a kicker-pit, a larger and differently positioned centerboard and rudder, styrofoam seats and a non-skid foredeck. Some of these features in the construction of the "Explorer" were adopted by the plaintiff in its sailboat after the "Explorer" was actually placed on display for sale. The evidence also establishes that the sail plan of the "Explorer" differs from that of the "Day Sailer" and that the insignia on its sails are completely different. In addition, every "Explorer" bears a conspicuous name plate securely affixed to its combing bearing the words "Sailstar", the trade name under which the defendant corporation does business, and the word "Explorer".
It is also clear from the evidence that the "Explorer" has likewise enjoyed substantial commercial success and constitutes strong competition for the plaintiff's product.
There was no evidence that any person had ever purchased an "Explorer" believing that he was buying the plaintiff's sailboat or that there was any confusion among prospective purchasers of sailboats as to the source of defendants' boat. In fact, the evidence showed clearly that prospective purchasers of sailboats universally exercise particular care and discrimination in buying them, and that there was no likelihood of confusion on their part as to the make they were considering for purchase or as to the identity of its manufacturer. In addition, there was no evidence or even suggestion that the defendants were "palming off" their sailboat as that of the plaintiff or that it was made by the plaintiff. As hereinbefore recited, each of defendants' boats bore a conspicuous label indicating its name and the name of its maker, and its advertising material clearly disclosed the source of said "Explorer".
Similarly, there was no evidence that the defendant Talman Bigelow wrongfully appropriated to his use any confidential information to which he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blazon, Inc. v. DeLuxe Game Corp.
...case there is no allegation that defendant's products were inferior in quality to plaintiff's, (see George O'Day Associates, Inc. v. Talman Corp., 206 F.Supp. 297, 300 (D.R.I.), aff'd sub nom. O'Day Corp. v. Talman Corp., 310 F.2d 623 (1st Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 977, 83 S.Ct. 11......
-
Co-Rect Products, Inc. v. Marvy! Advertising Photography, Inc.
...F.2d 299, 305 (2d Cir.1981); Pantone, Inc. v. A.I. Friedman, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 545, 552 (S.D.N.Y.1968); George O'Day Associates, Inc. v. Talman Corp., 206 F.Supp. 297, 300 (D.R.I.), aff'd, 310 F.2d 623 (1st Cir.1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 977, 83 S.Ct. 1112, 10 L.Ed.2d 142 Finally, the ap......
-
General Pool Corporation v. Hallmark Pool Corporation, 66 C 754.
...where, as here, no diversity exists. Defendants rely heavily in their efforts to resist plaintiff's claim on George O'Day Associates, Inc. v. Talman Corporation, 206 F.Supp. 297, aff'd on other grounds, 310 F.2d 623 (1st Cir. 1962). Such reliance is misplaced since there, unlike here, the p......
-
Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc.
...ads. See Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Industries, Inc., 16 A.D.2d 420, 228 N.Y.S.2d 514 (1st Dep't 1962); George O'Day Associates, Inc. v. Talman Corp., 206 F.Supp. 297 (D.R.I.), aff'd, 310 F.2d 623 (1st Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 977, 83 S.Ct. 1112, 10 L.Ed.2d 142 (1963). And, u......