National Bank in North Kansas City v. Bank of North Kansas City

• Citation: 172 S.W.2d 967,238 Mo.App. 19
• Parties: The National Bank in North Kansas City, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Bank of North Kansas City, a Corporation, Respondent
• Decision Date: 24 May 1943
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas

172 S.W.2d 967

238 Mo.App. 19

The National Bank in North Kansas City, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Bank of North Kansas City, a Corporation, Respondent

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 24, 1943

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court; Hon. James S. Rooney, Judge.

Affirmed.

Armwell L. Cooper, James S. Simrall and Butler Disman for appellant.

Cooper Neel & Sutherland and Simrall & Simrall of counsel.

(1) A corporation is entitled to protection against the use of the same or a similar name by another corporation on general common law principles regardless of any statutory provisions. State ex rel. Hutchinson et al. v. McGrath, 92 Mo 355, 5 S.W. 29; Investor Pub. Co. v. Dobinson, 72 F 603, on appeal 82 F. 56; Cleveland Opera Co. v. Cleveland Civic Opera Association, 22 Ohio App. 400, 154 N.E. 352; Standard Oilshares v. Standard Oil Group, 17 Del. Ch. 113, 150 A. 174. (2) The State of Missouri, by specific statutes, has declared a public policy in distinct harmony with the universal principles of the common law. Sec. 762, R. S. Mo. 1879; Sec. 1737, R. S. Mo. 1919; Sec. 4541, R. S. Mo. 1929; Sec. 5015, R. S. Mo. 1939; State ex rel. Hutchinson et al. v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 5 S.W. 29. (3) A corporate name is a property right that will be protected against unlawful appropriation and, if there is a sufficient similarity to indicate probable deception, actual deception or intent to defraud need not be proved. State ex rel. Hutchinson et al. v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 5 S.W. 29; Holland Furnace Company v. New Holland Machine Company, 24 F.2d 751; Empire Trust Co. v. Empire Finance Corp., 226 Mo.App. 298, 41 S.W.2d 847; M. M. Newcomer Co. v. Newcomer's New Store, 142 Tenn. 108, 217 S.W. 822; Supreme Lodge of World Loyal Order of Moose v. Paramount Progressive Order of Moose, 26 S.W.2d 826; American Products Co. v. American Products Co., 42 F.2d 488; Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Holmes, Booth & Atwood Mfg. Co., 37 Conn. 278, 9 Am. Rep. 324; G. B. McVay Sons Feed Co. v. McVay Seed & Floral Co., 201 Ala. 644, 79 So. 116; Churchill Downs Distilling Co. v. Churchill Downs, Inc., 90 S.W.2d 1041; Standard Oil Co. of New Mexico v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 56 F.2d 973; Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson, 21 F.2d 467, on appeal 26 F.2d 972; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. A. & P. Cleaners & Dyers, 10 F.Supp. 450. (4) Where corporate names so far resemble each other that a person using due care, caution and observation would mistake one for the other, the new name is to be regarded as an imitation of the former. State ex rel. Hutchinson v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 5 S.W. 29; Empire Trust Co. v. Empire Finance Corp., 226 Mo.App. 298, 41 S.W.2d 847; Nims on Unfair Competition. (5) Evidence as to the popular or abbreviated name by which a corporation is known is material in consideration of the simulation of the same in another corporate title. Philadelphia Trust Safe Deposit & Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Trust Co., 123 F. 534; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. A. & P. Radio Stores, 20 F.Supp. 703; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. A. & P. Meat Market, 138 Misc. 224, 244 N.Y.S. 535; Goodyear's India Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 32 L.Ed. 535; Eureka Fire Hose Co. v. Eureka Rubber Mfg. Co., 69 N.J.Eq. 156, 60 A. 561; application for modification 72 N.J.Eq. 555, 65 A. 870; Hudson's Bay v. Hudson Bay Fur Co., 33 F.2d 801; Standard Bank v. Standard Bank (Eng.), 25 Times L. R. 420. (6) Although geographical and generic names are not capable of exclusive appropriation in corporate names the same cannot be used, either singly or in combination, in another corporate name so as to mislead, confuse or deceive. In re Albany City Savings Institution, 190 N.Y.S. 334, 191 N.Y.S. 913; Middletown Trust Co. v. Middletown National Bank, 1010 Conn. 13, 147 A. 22; International Trust Co. v. International Loan & Trust Co., 153 Mass. 271, 26 N.E. 693; New York Trust Co. v. New York County Trust Co., 211 N.Y.S. 785; People's Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Pittsburgh, 102 A. 412; Detroit Savings Bank v. Highland State Bank of Detroit, 167 N.W. 895; In re Bank of Europe, 179 N.Y.S. 664, 181 N.Y.S. 927; Delaware Charter Service Co., 144 A. 659; Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. of Kansas, 1 N.Y.S. 44; Standard Bank v. Standard Bank (Eng.), 25 Times L. R. 420; Drugs Consolidated v. Drug Incorporated, 144 A. 656; Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Grand Rapids Furniture Shops, 191 N.W. 939; In re United States Mortgage Co., 32 N.Y.S. 11; In re Los Angeles Trust Co., 112 P. 56; Michigan Savings Bank v. Dime Savings Bank, 127 N.W. 364. (7) Action by an executive department in approving a name in no manner precludes relief to an older corporation. Empire Trust Co. v. Empire Finance Corp., 226 Mo.App. 298, 41 S.W.2d 847; Household Finance Corp. v. Household Finance Corp., 11 F.Supp. 3; Personal Finance Co. v. Personal Loan Service, 133 Neb. 373, 275 N.W. 324; General Film Co. of Mo. v. General Film Co. of Me., 237 F. 64.

Lawson & Hale and Ryland, Stinson, May & Thomson for respondent.

(1) "The National Bank in North Kansas City" has no property right in, or exclusive right to the use of, the words "Bank" and "North Kansas City" in its corporate name, since the former is generic and descriptive and the latter is geographical. (a) The word "Bank" is generic and descriptive of the type of business carried on, and hence is not subject to exclusive appropriation. Sanders v. Utt, 16 Mo.App. 322; Trask Fish Co. v. Wooster, 28 Mo.App. 408; Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Employers Liability Insurance Co., 10 N.Y.S. 845; A. J. Reach Co. v. Simmons Hardware Co., 155 Mo.App. 412, 135 S.W 503; Alden v. Gross, 25 Mo.App. 123; Furniture Hospital v. Dorfman, 179 Mo.App. 302; Umpqua Broccoli Exchange v. Umqua Valley Broccoli Growers (Ore.), 245 P. 234; Detroit Savings Bank v. Highland Park State Bank of Detroit, 201 Mich. 601, 167 N.W. 895. (b) The words "North Kansas City" are geographical, and hence not subject to exclusive appropriation, where their use is truthful and descriptive, and not fanciful. Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 20 L.Ed. 581; Detroit Savings Bank v. Highland Park State Bank of Detroit, 201 Mich. 601, 167 N.W. 895; A. J. Reach Co. v. Simmons Hardware Co., 155 Mo.App. 412, 135 S.W. 503; American Brewing Co. v. St. Louis Brewing Co., 47 Mo.App. 14; Wolf Bros. & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 165 F. 413; Sanders v. Utt, 16 Mo.App. 322; Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460; Umpqua Broccoli Exchange v. Umqua Valley Broccoli Growers (Ore.), 245 P. 324. (2) The act of the defendant in changing its name to "Bank of North Kansas City" is not unfair competition with "The National Bank in North Kansas City." (a) The doctrine of unfair competition is predicated on fraud and deceit. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co., 104 F. 243; Simmons Medicine Co. v. Mansfield Drug Co., 93 Tenn. 84, 23 S.W. 165; St. Louis Carbonating & Mfg. Co. v. The Eclipse Carbonating Co., 58 Mo.App. 411. (b) Similarity must be such as to show probable deception or intent to mislead. McCartney v. Garnhart, 45 Mo. 593; Silver Laundry & Towel Co. v. Silver, 195 S.W. 529; Soft-Lite Lens Co. v. Optical Service Co., 133 S.W.2d 1078; Mary Muffet, Inc., v. Smelansky, 158 S.W.2d 168; Michigan Savings Bank of Detroit v. Dime Savings Bank of Detroit, 162 Mich. 287, 127 N.W. 364; Detroit Savings Bank v. Highland Park State Bank of Detroit, 201 Mich. 601, 167 N.W. 895; In re Ban of Attica, 12 N.Y.S. 648. (c) Mere adoption of a similar name is not ground for an injunction. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. v. Standard Paint Co., 163 F. 977; Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 220 U.S. 446; Furniture Hospital v. Dorfman, 179 Mo.App. 302; Trask Fish Co. v. Wooster, 28 Mo.App. 408; Sanders v. Jacob, 20 Mo.App. 96; Mary Muffet, Inc., v. Smelansky, 158 S.W.2d 168. (3) Equity will withhold relief except in very clear cases of unfair competition. Evidence of isolated instances of confusion will not support an injunction. (a) Equity will withhold relief except in very clear cases of unfair competition. Plant Seed Co. v. Michel Plant & Seed Co., 37 Mo.App. 313; Hilson Co. v. Foster, 80 F. 896; Michigan Savings Bank v. Dime Savings Bank, 162 Mich. 297, 127 N.W. 364. (b) Evidence of isolated instances of confusion will not support an injunction. Soft-Lite Lens Co. v. Optical Service Co., 133 S.W.2d 1078. (4) Names of banks may be more nearly similar than is permitted in the case of ordinary merchandising corporation. (a) It is frequently said "there is probably greater latitude allowed to banks and insurance companies in the similarity of corporate names than in the case of ordinary mercantile corporations." Central Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Central Mutual Ins. Co. of Chicago, 275 Mich. 554, 267 N.W. 733; Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Standard Surety and Casualty Co. of N. Y., 53 F.2d 119; New York Trust Co. v. New York County Trust Co., 125 Misc. 735, 211 N.Y.S. 785; In re Bank of Europe, 109 Misc. 363, 179 N.Y.S. 664, aff. 191 A.D. 905, 191 N.Y.S. 927. (b) Appellant must stand or fall on its corporate name. Detroit Savings Bank v. Highland Park State Bank of Highland Park, 201 Mich. 601, 167 N.W. 895; Central Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Central Mutual Ins. Co. of Chicago, 275 Mich. 554, 267 N.W. 733; Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Employers Liability Ins. Co., 10 N.Y.S. 845; In re United States Mortgage Co., 83 Hun. 572, 32 N.Y.S. 11; Michigan Savings Bank v. Dime Savings Bank, 162 Mich. 297, 127 N.W. 364. (c) Some weight should be given to the action of the Finance Commissioner in permitting respondent to change its corporate name. R. S. Mo. 1939, Secs. 5015, 7940, 7942; Empire Trust Co. v. Empire Finance Corp., 226 Mo.App....