Little v. Kellam

• Decision Date: 19 March 1900
• Citation: 100 F. 353
• Parties: LITTLE et al. v. KELLAM et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

100 F. 353

LITTLE et al. v. KELLAM et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York.

March 19, 1900

Rowland Cox, for complainants.

Edward S. Beach, for defendants.

COXE District Judge.

This is a bill to restrain unfair competition. The complainants are manufacturers of 'Sorosis' shoes for women. The original defendant was a dealer at Albany, N.Y., in shoes manufactured by Kellam, Tilton & Co. The manufacturers have intervened and will hereafter be referred to as the defendants. They are the real parties in interest and should be so treated.

In the spring of 1896 the complainants, who have their manufactory at Lynn, Mass., adopted, in advance of all others, the tradename 'Sorosis' to designate shoes made by them. Their shoes are of superior workmanship and have a characteristic appearance. The 'Sorosis' shoes very soon became popular and the complainants under this name have built up a large, profitable and constantly increasing business. Two years after the name 'Sorosis' had been chosen, after a good will had been created and the commercial success of the complainants' shoes had been assured the defendants, also manufacturers of women's shoes at Lynn selected the name 'Sartoris' as their trade-mark. This name was applied to a cheaper grade of shoe which in appearance very closely resembles the 'Sorosis' shoe. In all prominent and characteristic features one shoe might easily be mistaken for the other by a casual observer. For reasons which it is unnecessary to dwell upon 'Sartoris' was changed successively to 'Sartoria' and 'Satoria.' The use of the name 'Sartoris' to designate corsets or bonnets or even women's galoches would probably not interfere with the complainants' trade, but, on the other hand, its use in connection with shoes which, in appearance, are almost identical with the 'Sorosis' shoes, may, and probably will, confuse and mislead the public. Purchasers are notoriously careless as to details. The salient features of an article, which has been tried and found satisfactory in the past, are remembered, but not the minute particulars. In the multitude of commodities which the ingenuity engendered by competition presents to the consumer, it is impossible for him to do more than retain in memory the general features of the article which impresses him, sufficiently to enable him to describe and identify it in case he wishes to purchase. If a manufacturer has built up a good will and made a fortune in selling his goods under a unique and popular trade-name there is danger, if another manufacturer of the same city adopts a similar name to designate similar goods, that confusion will result in the minds of purchasers which can only tend to the injury of the former. The ease with which thoughtless purchasers are misled...