McGraw-Hill Pub. Co. v. American Aviation Associates, 7615.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7615.,7615. |
| Citation | 117 F.2d 293 |
| Parties | McGRAW-HILL PUB. CO., Inc., v. AMERICAN AVIATION ASSOCIATES, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Chas. R. Allen, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Fred B. Rhodes, Cooper B. Rhodes, and Robert F. Klepinger, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before GRONER, C. J., and EDGERTON and VINSON, JJ.
The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company filed a complaint against the American Aviation Associates and its President, Wayne W. Parrish, for trade mark infringement and unfair competition. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
a periodical under the name of Aviation".
These facts outline the first issue to be considered, the charge that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's trade mark. The law of registered and common law trade marks evolved from the broad doctrine of unfair competition. The cause of action for technical trade mark infringement, however, rests upon a precise base. The "unfair competition" in an infringement action comes merely from interfering with the trade mark itself. There is infringement if the words or designs used by the defendant are identical with, or so similar to, the plaintiff's that they are likely to cause confusion.2
In determining whether the words or designs create probable confusion, two methods may be followed. The marks themselves may be compared and contrasted; evidence may be introduced to show actual instances of confusion in the purchase of goods.
In following the first method, it must be remembered that the law of trade marks is for the market place. Its purpose is to protect the several manufacturers in their respective spheres of public relations and to safeguard the consumer by helping him get what he thinks he wants. The method starts, therefore, with placing oneself in the position of a purchaser. One should look at the plaintiff's trade mark to obtain a general impression, the impression that would be carried in the memory, and then to observe, still as a buyer, the defendant's mark to determine if it is likely to be mistaken for this "memory trade mark" of the plaintiff.
the defendant's title Aviation" will not, in all probability, be confused with the plaintiff's trade mark, "AVIATION". Although this conclusion is formed on the whole appearance, its expression must necessarily detail the differences. "AVIATION" as registered and as used has all letters capitalized. The defendant's title capitalizes only the first letter. The plaintiff's first "A" in "AVIATION" has a pointed top; the defendant's is flat. The defendant's title is composed of two words "American" being displayed almost as prominently as "Aviation". Apparently, the defendant has consistently employed a winged design over the first "i" in "Aviation". We agree with the trial Judge's statement, "The printed titles upon the two magazines are quite different, and sufficiently so to indicate the difference to any one wishing to buy either." The audience of both magazines, moreover, is a special one. Both magazines have followed a definite policy of confining their circulation to the people who are working and studying in the aviation field. In fact the magazines do not attempt to appeal to all the subdivisions of that trade. The great bulk of the purchasers are mail subscribers. Such an audience is even less susceptible to confusion.3
The plaintiff in addition, has followed the other, more reliable method of showing probable confusion by submitting evidence that purports to reveal disorder in the mind of the purchasing public. Upon examination this evidence proves to be spotty, and for the most part manifests the mistaking of personnel in the two publishing companies. Some of it reveals errors in addressing letters. Both types of mistakes are often made even in connection with old, well established concerns. It would be well within our everyday experience to find a person rather conversant with periodicals who forgot whether "John Jones" was associated with "The Saturday Evening Post" or with "Collier's" and whether the home office of the latter was New York or Philadelphia. A publisher though he has a registered trade mark cannot be protected from all of the inadequacies of human thought and memory. We believe that the record shows only one instance of a person who ordered the defendant's magazine while meaning to place a subscription with the plaintiff. And this was a renewal subscription by a clerk of an Embassy in a foreign country. Probable confusion cannot be shown by pointing out that at some place, at some time, someone made a false identification. The plaintiff did not show one instance of a newsstand purchaser receiving the magazine he did not intend to buy. Under both methods of determination, we conclude, without hesitation, that the defendant's title does not infringe the plaintiff's registered trade mark.4
There is an alternative ground for holding that there is no infringement. Plaintiff's trade mark "AVIATION" is not "arbitrary or fanciful", but descriptive. It is difficult to conceive of a term that would be more descriptive of the contents of the plaintiff's magazine. The plaintiff suggests that a descriptive word designates some physical characteristic. But that magazines may be described by their subject matter is too clear to be doubted.5 The plaintiff further suggests that its magazine deals with aeronautics, more so than with aviation. It appears that the only difference the plaintiff infers is that while the term aeronautics applies to the art and science of operating all aircraft, aviation is confined to that aircraft which is heavier-than-air. To be able to find a term which is as, or even more, descriptive, does not answer the charge that the title involved is descriptive. The trial court found the term aviation to be descriptive; we would come to the same conclusion if the matter were for our independent judgment.
With this established, we turn to the Act under which plaintiff registered the title, "AVIATION". "* * * no mark which consists * * * merely in words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used * * * shall be registered * * *".6 Hence, the registration is invalid.7 For the same reason the title cannot become a trade mark at common law.8 The defendant, then, has not infringed the "trade mark", for the plaintiff has no trade mark either under the statute or the common law.
Another cause of action is alleged by the complaint. It is the charge of unfair competition. Unfair competition in the trade name field is not concerned with intent or plan; it is enough if the acts of the defendant in light of the plaintiff's reputation result in an unfair benefit to the former. To constitute unfair competition in respect to a trade name, two elements must be present. The name must have acquired a secondary meaning or significance that identifies the plaintiff; the defendant must have unfairly used the name or a simulation of it against the plaintiff.
In respect to the first element, it is dubious whether it could be found that plaintiff has acquired a secondary meaning or significance for his title, "AVIATION". As is evident by the record and exhibits, and as the trial court found, other magazines have used the word, aviation, as a dominant and descriptive part of their titles. The plaintiff has not shown the degree of correlation between a trade name and his product that has formed the basis for relief in other cases.9
be described as "winged"; and Aviation"'s comments upon the suit filed by plaintiff company.
"American
That the type display of Aviation" does not copy or imitate the plaintiff's title was shown in the discussion on infringement. The complaint on the color background simmers down, apparently, to the use of a hue that contrasts with the letters of the title. Obviously, such a contrast is necessary. Further, from the several exhibits before us, it appears that the defendant has consistently used black, highlighted by white, for the beginning letter in each of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board
...there is no inflexible rule and the circumstances in each situation must be considered. See, e. g., McGraw-Hill Pub. Co. v. American Aviation Associates, 1940, 73 App.D.C. 131, 117 F.2d 293; ("American Aviation" and "Aviation"); Pure Oil Co. v. The Pep Boys, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 128 F.......
-
Shoppers Fair of Arkansas, Inc. v. Sanders Company
...competition action based on trade-name infringement were stated in the case of McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. v. American Aviation Associates, 73 App. D.C. 131, 117 F.2d 293, at page 296 (D.C. Cir.1940), in which the court made this "* * * Unfair competition in the trade name field is not conce......
-
Farm Service, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...National Fruit Product Co. v. Dwinell-Wright Co., 47 F.Supp. 499, 509 (D.Mass.1942); McGraw-Hill Pub. Co. v. American Aviation Associates, Inc., 73 App.D.C. 131, 117 F.2d 293, 296 (1940). The order granting the preliminary injunction is reversed and the cause is remanded for further Costs t......
-
Greenway Nutrients, Inc. v. Steve Blackburn, Stacy Blackburn, David Selakovic, Fulfillment Solutions Servs., LLC
...145 Colo. 600, 360 P.2d 440, 442–443 (Colo.1961) ( citing McGraw – Hill Publishing Company, Inc. v. American Aviation Associates, Inc., 117 F.2d 293, 296 (D.C.Cir.1940). See also American Furniture Co. v. American Furniture Co., 128 Colo. 160, 261 P.2d 163 (Colo.1953). Ultimately, the unive......
-
Chapter VI. Selected legal opinions of the secretariats of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations
...level. (2) The degree of similarity between the marks As the court distinguished in McGraw-Hill Pub. Co. v. American Aviation Association, 117 F.2d 293, 295 (1940), differences in titles can be established by regarding the size and shape of the letters used. In McGraw, the court decided tha......