Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. Rose

• Decision Date: 27 June 1935
• Citation: 181 A. 8,120 Conn. 373
• Parties: YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. v. ROSE et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

181 A. 8

120 Conn. 373

YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. v. ROSE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 27, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John A. Cornell Judge.

Action by the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company against Charles M Rose and others for an injunction to restrain the use of the name " Yale's Hardware Store" or any modification thereof containing the word " Yale's" or " Yale" in the business of the defendants, brought to the superior court and tried to the court. Judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed.

No error.

Raymond E. Hackett, of Stamford, and Louis H. Porter, of New York City, for appellant.

Josiah H. Peck, of Hartford, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

HAINES, Judge.

The plaintiff is a corporation under a special charter from the Legislature of this state. For more than seventy years it has developed a world-wide business in the manufacture and sale of locks, hardware, and other fabricated articles, and many years ago adopted and has since continuously and universally used the word " Yale" as its trade-mark on its products, identifying such products and its business entirely by the word " Yale." This business has been one of increasing volume, which in the aggregate has amounted to about $300,000,000; in 1929 it was $18,000,000. Its principal office and manufacturing plant is located at Stamford in this state, with branches in other cities both in this country and abroad. It now manufactures approximately fifty thousand different articles and markets them widely throughout the world. A large proportion of the jobbers and wholesalers in the hardware trade carry and sell its products, and a substantial amount of its business consists in the sale thereof in a large number of cities and towns in this state, and it has been from the start identified with a high type of workmanship and quality. It has registered the word " Yale" as its trademark in the Patent Office in Washington and in practically every country in the world. This trade-mark has been used and stamped upon articles manufactured by it to indicate their origin, and it has prominently displayed the word, not only upon its articles of manufacture, but on the cartons and wrappings thereof and in its catalogues and advertising matter. It is a distinguishing part of its corporate title and has been used in its advertising to the extent of approximately five and one-half million dollars; such advertisements have been widely, disseminated throughout the United States and foreign countries, and the general public and the trade have recognized and do recognize its products by the name of " Yale" as being of high quality. The right of the plaintiff, thus acquired, to use the word " " Yale" as indicated, is a substantial and valuable right.

The defendants Yale Rose and Charles M. Rose are brothers and own and operate a small store on Front street in the city of Hartford, in which they retail hardware, house furnishings, plumbing and electrical supplies, wall papers, paints, varnishes, and sundry other articles. They commenced business in 1924 on Front street and at that time filed a certificate of registration of the trade-name " Yale's Hardware Store" in the town clerk's office at Hartford. The trial court found that Yale Rose, the elder of the two brothers, was the " " dominating influence in the business." This is challenged by the appellant, but the evidence justifies this finding as a reasonable inference from the evidence as to the way the business was begun and continued. The defendants have no authority from or connection with the plaintiff, nor any right to use its name in merchandising or marketing hardware. The store is located in a portion of the city which is occupied largely by a foreign-born population, mostly Italian, and its business is almost entirely drawn from this class of people.

The defendant Yale Rose has been doing business on Front street since 1910, and before the present store was established, had become known in that vicinity as " Yale" and by no other name. The name " Yale's Hardware Store" was adopted in order to identify the store and its location in that part of the city where he was known as " Yale." This latter finding is claimed by the appellant to be without evidence to support it. While it is true it is not stated as a fact in the defendant's testimony, it does appear that he being known by the name of " " Yale," this name " Yale's Hardware Store" was adopted. It certainly had the effect of indicating that this was Yale Rose's store, and in the absence of specific testimony upon this point we deem it a reasonable inference that this was at least one of the purposes for which the name was adopted. There is no evidence of any other purpose.

The name " Yale's Hardware Store" has been displayed by the defendants upon a sign over the front of the store, and the same name appears in the Hartford telephone directory, and the word " Yale's" appears on their letterhead in slightly larger type over the words " Hardware Store." This letterhead comes to the attention of only such persons as they have occasion to correspond with in their business. Between 35 and 40 per cent. of their business comes to them by orders over the telephone. Most of the customers ask for the article they desire without respect to the maker of the article, and almost none of them specify articles manufactured by any particular concern.

The appellant takes exception to the findings of the trial court that the defendants have not sought or intended to mislead the public or any individual into believing that their store is one owned, conducted, or authorized by the plaintiff, that plaintiff's products are sold therein, or to confuse the public in this respect, but that their business has been and is a fair and honest use of the Christian name of Yale Rose to attract business from those who know him by that name. The evidence of record contains no direct testimony bearing upon the defendants' intentions or motives in employing the name complained of. These intentions and motives are questions of fact. An examination of the pleadings shows that the plaintiff's complaint charges the defendants with adopting the name " for no other reason or purpose than to secure for the defendants the value of the goodwill and name of the plaintiff," and that the use of the name " was done and intended to be done by the defendants in such a way and in such a manner as to be wholly a cause of confusion in the minds of the purchasing public and to induce such public to believe that the store of the defendants was maintained or authorized by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is responsible for articles sold and services performed therein, to the plaintiff's damage" and that " each and all of the acts and doings of the defendants *** are all knowingly and fraudulently designed and calculated to defraud and secure to the defendants the benefit of the goodwill of the plaintiff's business and to induce users and purchasers of the locks, keys and hardware and other articles to believe the same to be the business or the well-known product and workmanship of the plaintiff." Met, as these allegations are, by a general denial in the answer, a direct question of fact is raised as to the motives of the defendants with the resulting burden of proof upon the plaintiff. The adverse conclusions of the trial court now excepted to are conclusions reached from all the testimony. They amount to a finding that the plaintiff has not sustained its burden of proof in this respect and will be so considered by this court. " The case stands upon an answer denying the material allegations [and claims] of the complaint, and in so far as the superior court omitted to find true the allegations and claims of the plaintiffs, those allegations and claims must be regarded as not proved." Rogers & Brother v. Rogers, 53 Conn. 121, 147, 1 A. 807, 808, 5 A. 675, 55 Am. Rep. 78.

Exception is also taken to the findings of the trial court that while the association of the word " Yale" with goods of the type manufactured by the plaintiff, and the conjoining of them with the word " Hardware" in a business title would ordinarily have a tendency to confuse the public as contended by the plaintiff, yet the use made of the word " Yale's" by the defendants has not actually done so or caused any injury to the plaintiff, nor is it reasonably probable that it will do so in the future. This likewise is a conclusion reached upon an issue raised by plaintiff's own affirmative claims and the defendants' general denial. The complaint alleged that these acts of the defendants were done " to the plaintiff's great loss and injury, and to the deception, loss and injury to the public." The evidence of the plaintiff does not sustain the burden of proof of these allegations, and we take the conclusion of the trial court as a finding to that effect. Moreover, it appears from the evidence that this is a small retail store selling many articles...