National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Drying Mach. Co., Civ. A. No. 16518.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 16518. |
| Citation | 136 F. Supp. 886 |
| Parties | NATIONAL DRYER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al. v. The NATIONAL DRYING MACHINERY COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Daniel Mungall, Jr., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Louis Necho, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1117, provides that the right to recover profits against a trademark infringer shall be "subject to the principles of equity". It seems to be definitely settled since Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125, 67 S.Ct. 1136, 91 L.Ed. 1386, that an accounting for profits does not automatically follow a judgment of infringement. The "principles of equity" give the Court a very wide discretion and, as appears from the opinion in the case cited, the Court may base its discretion upon a wide range of considerations. Thus, in that case the Court pointed out that there had been no showing of fraud or palming off, that the respondents had for several years apparently tried to comply with a cease and desist order of the Federal Trade Commission which would have eliminated any possible imposition upon the public as to the secondhand character of the goods, and that the likelihood of damage to the petitioner or profit to the respondents seemed slight. Thus, not only the probabilities as to the existence of profits and damages were considered but also the nature of the infringement, the absence of fraudulent intent and what was done by the respondents in order to avoid misleading the public.
It is true that in Century Distilling Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp., 3 Cir., 205 F.2d 140, Judge Maris ordered an accounting upon a finding of infringement, without discussing the question whether there were any profits or damages to be accounted for or whether the equities of the case demanded it. It is possible that he did so on the theory that accounting would follow automatically upon the decree. However, in the Century case there was a definite finding by the Court of the existence of competition between the two products involved, a finding which almost postulated damages, if not profits, and which would give a basis for the exercise of the Court's discretion to grant an accounting.
In the present case the products are not the same and there is no competition between them. The injunction was granted to protect the counterclaimant against competition by the plaintiff, presently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red Devil Tools v. Tip Top Brush Co.
...& Johnson, 206 F.2d 144 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 867, 74 S.Ct. 106, 98 L.Ed. 377 (1953); National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Drying Mach. Co., 136 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 228 F.2d 349 (3 Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 906, 76 S.Ct. 694, 100 L.Ed. 1442 (1956); Morgenstern......
-
GD Searle & Co. v. Inst. Drug Distributors
...§ 1117; Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 1947, 331 U. S. 125, 130-131, 67 S.Ct. 1136, 91 L.Ed. 1386; National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Machinery Co., D.C.Pa.1955, 136 F.Supp. 886. Otherwise the plaintiff is entitled to the full relief as spelled out by the court in Mishawaka Rubber &......
-
Admiral Corporation v. Price Vacuum Stores
...Court said: "Here, as we have noted, there has been no showing of fraud or palming off." National Dryer Manufacturing Corp. v. National Drying Machinery Co., D.C. E.D.Pa.1955, 136 F.Supp. 886, holds that damages will be awarded only when the equities require it. The case of National Drying ......
-
Red Devil Tools v. Tip Top Brush Co.
...& Co., 253 F.2d 390 (3 Cir. 1958), certiorari denied 358 U.S. 816, 79 S.Ct. 25, 3 L.Ed.2d 58 (1958); National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Drying Mach. Co., 136 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Pa.), afirmed 228 F.2d 349 (3 Cir. 1955); Acme Chemical Co. v. Dobkin, 68 F.Supp. 601, 614 (W.D.Pa. 1946); Annota......