RICHARD STORE CO.
v.
RICHARD'S WAREHOUSE SALES & AUCTION GALLERY, 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.
Richard Store Co. appealed a trademark injunction limiting defendant from using "Richards" prominently in advertisements. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the injunction but broadened it to prohibit any advertising that could represent the parties as affiliated or connected in business, and imposed all costs on the defendant.
The court affirmed the injunction against prominent display of "Richards" in advertisements but expanded it to prohibit defendant from any advertising by any means that would represent to the public that the two corporations were affiliated or connected in business in any manner.
“defendant had prominently displayed the word "Richards" in its advertisements so as to represent to the public that it was a part of or connected with the plaintiff organization”
Establishes the factual basis for the injunction—defendant's deceptive advertising conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Store Co. was organized prior to June 1939 and continuously operated a department store in Miami under the name "Richard." Richards Warehouse …
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
TERRELL, Justice.
This appeal is from a final decree enjoining appellee as defendant, its officers, agents, and employees, from using the name “Richard” prominently in its advertisements or otherwise to acquaint the public with its goods, wares, or merchandise.
Appellant contends that “Richards” is the significant part of its trade-name, by the use of which it has built up a considerable 'business and much good will, and being so, the chancellor should have enjoined the use of any part or all of it. The final decree in other words should not have been limited to enjoining the use of the word “Richards.”
The Master found that plaintiff, appellant, was organized for business prior to June 1939, and since that time has continuously operated a department store under the name “Richard”; that defendant was organized for business in 1948 under the name of Richards Warehouse Sales and Auction Gallery, Inc., and has conducted its business under that name. Both corporations operate in Miami, Florida. The Master further found that there was not such similarity between the names of the two corporations as would warrant injunction, against defendant using its corporate name in identifying or advertising its business.
The Master found, however, that defendant had prominently displayed the word “Richards” in its advertisements so as to represent to the public that it was a part of or connected with the plaintiff organization ; that defendant’s continuous use of the word “Richards” deceives the public and leads it to believe that the two corporations, are the same and that such use has harmed the plaintiff and benefited the defendant. On the basis of this finding the chancellor permanently enjoined defendant from; prominently displaying the word “Rich--ards” in its advertisements.
We find ample support for the-chancellor’s decree, but we are of the view that it should have gone further and prohibited defendant from performing any act by newspaper, poster, radio, television or other means of advertising that would directly or indirectly represent to the public-or to any one that plaintiff and defendant. were affiliated or connected in business in any manner or that either of them had any interest or connection whatever in the business of the other. Since defendant’s conduct precipitated this litigation, all costs should have been imposed on it.
It results that the judgment appealed from is modified and affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
HOBSON, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Junior Food Stores OF W. Fla., Inc. v. JR. Food Stores, Inc., 226 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1969)…advertise itself in a manner which invites deception. For examples of other cases in which this Court has been concerned with the size of lettering in signs and advertising, see Richard Store Co. v. Richard’s Warehouse Sales & Auction Gallery, Inc., 63 So. 2d 502 (Fla.1953); McGhan v. McGhan, supra; Gottdiener v. Joe’s Restaurant, supra. It is our opinion that the decision of the District Court should be quashed and the cause remanded to the Chancellor for further evidentiary hearing to determine the nature…
-
Great S. Bank v. First S. Bank, 625 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1993)…zing that descriptive and generic words generally cannot be exclusively appropriated, and that where "intent to defraud the public” is alleged, a cause of action is stated); cf. Richard Store Co. v. Richard's Warehouse Sales & Auction Gallery, Inc., 63 So. 2d 502, 502 (Fla. 1953) (granting injunction where name "deceives the public and leads it to believe that the two corporations are the same”). . 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127 (1991). . Section 495.181, Florida Statutes (1991), provides: "It is the intent of the…
-
Consol. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Consol. Elec. Distribs. Se., Inc., 355 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…heast, Inc. are not so similar as to establish the prior registrant with common law trade name protection. See United Life Ins. Co. v. United Ins. Co., 70 So. 2d 310 (Fla.1954); Richard Store Co. v. Richard’s Warehouse Sales & Auction Gallery, Inc., 63 So. 2d 502 (Fla.1953). Secondly, in apparent realization of the aforementioned dissimilarity, appellant alleged that both corporations had acquired a secondary trade name, “Consolidated,” which caused confusion among the parties’ suppliers and customers. Assum…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence