CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS SOUTHEAST, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Affirmed dismissal of deceptive trade name infringement claim where the parties' names were not sufficiently similar and the allegedly confusing element was a generic term incapable of trademark protection.
A cause of action for deceptive trade name infringement fails when the business names are not sufficiently similar and any allegedly confusing element is a generic term.
[1] A generic term cannot be appropriated as a trade name or secondary trade name for purposes of establishing deceptive trade name infringement protection.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConsolidated Electric Supply, Inc. sued Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc. for deceptive trade name infringement, alleging both comp…
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.
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc., plaintiff below, appeals from an order denying its motion for rehearing. The motion for rehearing was filed in response to the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s amended complaint which sought both in-junctive relief and damages for deceptive trade name infringement against appellee, Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., defendant below.
After carefully reviewing appellant’s amended complaint and attached exhibits, in light of the applicable case law, it is our opinion that no cause of action for deceptive trade name infringement was established. Firstly, the names Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc., and Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, 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. Assuming such allegation as true, the word “consolidated,” being generic in nature, could not be appropriated for trade name purposes. Miller Brewing Company v. G. Heileman Brewing Company, Inc., 561 F. 2d 75 (C.A. 7th 1977).
Accordingly, appellant having failed, as a matter of law, in establishing a cause of action for deceptive trade name infringement, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dodi Publ'g Co. v. Editorial Am., 385 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1980)…This is a petition filed April 7,1980, seeking review of the following per curiam opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal: PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., 355 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The petitioner contends that the cited case, Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., conflicts with Williamson v. Answer Phone of Jacksonville, 118 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 196…
-
The Am. Bank OF Merritt Island v. First Am. Bank & Tr., 455 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…ter of law that two particular trade-names are so dissimilar on their face as to avoid the probability of customer confusion. For these reasons we agree with Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., 355 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), only if the complaint in that case failed to allege that the parties were in direct competition in the same trade area. . See Annot., Unfair Competition: Geographical Extent of Protection of Word or Symbol under Doctrine of Seco…
-
Marks v. Cayo Hueso, Ltd., 437 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…c in fact associates the name Casa Marina with CHL and its principals. Casa Marina is not a generic term and thus is subject to appropriation. Compare, e.g., Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., 355 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We hold that CHL has established a valid prior use of a trade name protectable under Section 495.151. Nonetheless, the defendants, relying upon Sun Coast, Inc. v. Shupe, 52 So. 2d 805 (Fla.1951), contend that CHL cannot establis…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc., 561 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1977)
- Richard Store Co. v. Richard's Warehouse Sales & Auction Gallery, Inc., 63 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1953)
- United Life Ins. Co. v. United INS. Co., 70 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1954)