Stork Restauraunt v. Sahati, 166 F.2d 348 (1948) p.65

SUBJECT

trademark infringement

FACTS

Strork club was a popular and heavily advertised New York club. A small restaurant in San Francisco tried to use the same name. Defense was that the bar in SF was really small and that no one would think it was the same place.

HOLDING

The SF restaurant violated the trademark of the NY club.

RATIONAL

Geographical distance does not mean much for liklihood of confusion. Lots of franchising these days. Also the courts look to who will be unjustly enriched by using someone else's name. In this case the SF restaurant would benefit by the good name of the NY club. Disparity in the sizes of businesses is irrelevant. Does not matter that the SF club was much smaller than the NY club.

Not necessary for trademark owner to prove that they lost business in order to maintain claim for trademark infringement.

The mark is not descriptive so therefore the defendant had an infinite number of names they could have used to compete. Rule is that if they trademark is descriptive then the public should have the right to use the name since everyone has the right to use descriptive words.

Created on: Thursday, January 13, 2000 at 18:33:16 (PST)