TABLE SUPPLY STORES, INC.,
v.
HOME SUPPLY STORES, INC.
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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision in favor of Home Supply Stores, Inc. The court found substantial evidence supported the lower court's finding that Table Supply Stores, Inc. did not prove unfair competition or name similarity sufficient to warrant an injunction.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the lower court's finding for the defendant. The appellate court found substantial evidence in the record to justify the decree for Home Supply Stores, Inc.
“Our investigation has satisfied us that in its last analysis the present appeal must turn entirely upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor’s finding of facts in the present case.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for the appellate court, focusing on the evidence supporting the lower court's factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTable Supply Stores, Inc. sued Home Supply Stores, Inc. for unfair competition, alleging the similarity of their names and advertising would confuse t…
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 Goodwill cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, The Table Supply Stores, Inc., filed its bill for injunction against the appellee, Home Supply Stores, Inc., seeking to enjoin the use by the appellee of its corporate name, “Home Supply Stores, Inc.,” on the grounds of similarity of the two names' and that the use by the appellee of the latter name in its advertising or otherwise, amounted to unfair competition and was violative of the property right which appellant had acquired in the good will that had attached to appellant’s name, trade practices and methods of doing business.
Appellee filed its answer setting up the fact that it was operating its business under the corporate name approved for it in a charter issued to it by the Secretary of State.' It specifically denied the alleged similarity of names, or use thereof amounting to unfair competition. It asserted that the distinctive name, “Home Supply Stores, Inc.,” had been adopted by it to show that the company was home owned. It further averred that it had acquired the busi*189ness and good will of a former company, that its advertising was framed to show that it was the successor to said company in order to preserve the good will that it had •acquired. Defendant also denied that it had ever adopted or used its corporate name to deceive the public, either intentionally pr otherwise, into believing its stores were the ■stores of appellant. Its contention is that if any confusion has in fact resulted, it has' been due to carelessness dr inattention on the part of the public, not to design of the defendant.
Our investigation has satisfied us that in its last analysis the present appeal must turn entirely upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor’s finding of facts in the present case. We have found in the record substantial evidence to justify a decree for the defendant on the merits of the issues raised by the averments of defendant’s answer. See Citizens’ Wholesale Supply Co. v. Downing, 107 Oh. St. 422, 140 N. E. Rep. 683.
Decree appealed from affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glazer v. Hoffman, 153 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1943)…alculated to bring him and his business into disrepute and showing financial losses and irreparable injuries unless re-, strained by a court of equity. McGhan v. McGhan, 115 Fla. 414, 155 So. 653, and Table Supply Stores v. Home Supply Stores, Inc., 115 Fla. 188, 155 So. 317, are cited and relied upon. In the case of Gottdiener v. Joe’s Restaurant, Inc., 111 Fla. 741, 149 So. 646, we held that the right to use one’s own personal name in a business is subject to established rules in [*816] regard to unfair…