PAUL RIMMEIR ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS SEA VIEW VENTILATED AWNING SHUTTERS, PETITIONERS,
v.
JACK DICKSON AND BENJAMIN HORROW, AS COPARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS MIAMI VENTILATED AWNING SHUTTER COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, upholding a lower court's decree that allowed plaintiffs to attempt to prove specific damages resulting from the defendants' infringement of their tradename and product symbols. The court clarified that the case involved non-technical symbols, not a technical trademark.
Yes, the lower court's decree was proper. The petition for certiorari is denied because the lower court correctly interpreted the prior ruling to allow for damages related to the infringement of non-technical symbols designating the firm and its products.
“We here review, on certiorari, the lower court's second amended final decree entered pursuant to the mandate of this court in Rimmeir v. Dickson, Fla.1957, 93 So. 2d 82.”
Establishes the procedural posture and the basis for the current review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lower court entered a second amended final decree, following a mandate from the Florida Supreme Court in a prior case. This decree permitted the p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trade Name Infringement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We here review, on certiorari, the lower court’s second amended final decree entered pursuant to the mandate of this court in Rimmeir v. Dickson, Fla.1957, 93 So. 2d 82. The amended decree here reviewed authorized further proceedings “so as to permit the plaintiffs to make a ‘definite showing of specific damages, if they can, resulting from infringement of plaintiffs’ tradename and trademark by defendants’.”
Assuming that by the use of the word “trademark” the lower court meant only a non-technical symbol designating the •defendants’ product — which is clearly the sense in which it was used in Rimmeir v. Dickson, supra — and that the plaintiffs’ •damages will, therefore, be properly limited to those referable to the unauthorized use by defendants of “the symbols designating the firm and those designating the products of defendant” (as distinguished from damages for the infringement of a technical trademark which, as noted in Rimmeir v. Dickson, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 732, is not involved here) the petition for certiorari should be and it is hereby
Denied.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Paul Rimmeir v. Milledge, 104 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1958)…oral argument was heard by the court. The previous opinions of this court upon which our mandates were based are as follows: Rimmeir v. Dickson, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 732; Dickson v. Rimmeir, Fla. 1957, 93 So. 2d 82; and Rimmeir v. Dickson, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 787. By these decisions it was established as the law of this case that the rule of damages contended for by the respondents Dickson and Horrow, which was incorporated in the decree first entered by the respondent judge in the instant case, is not appli…
-
Rimmeir v. Dickson, 107 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1958)…scribing its awning as “ventilated” except in the few particulars denominated “unfair competition” in our former opinions, see Rimmeir v. Dickson, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 732; Dickson v. Rimmeir, Fla.1957, 93 So. 2d 82; and Rimmeir v. Dickson, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 787, it is obvious that the number of plaintiffs' lost sales attributable to the unfair trade practices charged against Sea View would be the purest speculation. For example, Horrow testified that his salesmen reported to him that they would visit a pro…
Authorities Cited
- Rimmeir v. Dickson, 78 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1955)
- Dickson v. Rimmeir, 93 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1956)