International Forwarding Co. v. Brewer
| Citation | 181 F.2d 49 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 12952.,12952. |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL FORWARDING CO. v. BREWER. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
L. H. Hedrick, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
No appearance on behalf of appellee entered.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and WALLER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brought this suit for damages and to enjoin the defendant below: from using the trade name, "International Forwarding Service", or any other name confusedly similar to International Forwarding Co., the company and trade name of plaintiff, or to "International Service", plaintiff's slogan; and from the use of words, conduct, silence or actions calculated to deceive or mislead the public into believing that they are doing business with the plaintiff.
Alleging that, with the purpose and result of unfairly competing, with plaintiff, and of confusing and deceiving the public and persons desirous of transacting business with it and its affiliate and subsidiary, defendant deliberately selected the name "International Forwarding Service", and, though warned and directed to desist, continues to deceive, confuse, and mislead by using said name and practices.
The relief prayed by plaintiff was: (1) that defendant be enjoined from using the words "International Forwarding Service" and the word "International" in any manner in combination with the word "Forwarding" or "Service" as a part of defendant's trade name; (2) that it be enjoined from thus using these words in connection with the soliciting, procuring, or transaction of business for defendant; and (3) "that they be further enjoined from the use of words, actions, conduct, silence or actions in a manner calculated to deceive or mislead the public and particularly the customers of Plaintiff into believing they are doing business with International Forwarding Co., or into believing that such salesmen, agents, employees and servants are employed by, or acting for, said plaintiff". There were also prayers for damages and a general prayer for equitable relief.
Defendant set up: as a first defense that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief; for a second defense that the action is now barred by laches; and a third defense that the name sought to be enjoined is not sufficiently similar to plaintiff's name to cause confusion or deceive anyone.
There was further a denial that the use of the name has misled or deceived anyone, a denial that the plaintiff has suffered any harm or damages by reason of defendant's acts, and a denial that defendant ever represented to anyone that he was, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co.
...170 F.2d 914, 915, a unanimous Court (Judges Learned Hand, Swan and Chase) held that it was. Two years later, in International Forwarding Co. v. Brewer, 1950, 181 F.2d 49, the Fifth Circuit held likewise in a case where a plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings in an injunction act......
-
FEDERAL GLASS COMPANY v. Loshin
...Corporation, 2 Cir., 170 F.2d 914, that an appeal lay from such an order, and the Fifth Circuit did the same in International Forwarding Co. v. Brewer, 181 F.2d 49. On the other hand the Third Circuit in Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp., 181 F.2d 160, examined the question with mu......
-
C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, C.R.D. 72-11
...the motion must be denied if, as against the moving party, the pleadings raise any factual issues, International Forwarding Co. v. Brewer, 181 F. 2d 49 (CA5 1950), but must be granted if there are no disputed facts and the movant is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Edmonds v......
-
CJ Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States
...Furthermore, the motion must be denied if, as against the moving party, the pleadings raise any factual issues, International Forwarding Co. v. Brewer, 181 F.2d 49 (CA5 1950), but must be granted if there are no disputed facts and the movant is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of la......