Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Anthony Page

Last updated
Dial-A-Mattress Franchise v. Anthony Page
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name"Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corporation v. Anthony Page, dba Easy Associates, Page Industries, and Easy Bed, and Easy Bed, Incorporated"
StartedJune 2, 1989 (1989-06-02)
DecidedJuly 27, 1989 (1989-07-27)
Citation(s)880 F.2d 675; 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1644
Case history
Prior historyAppeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Case opinions
Although one company’s use of a generic term does not preclude competitors to use the term for their own business purposes, it does not mean competitors may use the term to deceive the public with a confusingly similar use of that term.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jon Ormond Newman, Roger Jeffrey Miner, Robert J. Ward
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 1654

Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page, 880 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989), [1] is a case that was tried in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which dealt with the issue of whether a plaintiff's telephone number, which translates into a generic term, is entitled to judicial protection when a second comer tries to use a confusingly similar number. [1]

Contents

Telephone numbers may be protected under trademark law when a competitor attempts to use a confusingly similar number. [2]

As in this case, a generic term is generally excluded from trademark law protection even if the word or number is a variation of that generic term, e.g., the generic term “shoes” as opposed to a variation like “shooz”or “shoe”. [1] However, although a second comer is entitled to use a generic term already being used by a competitor, the second comer may still be enjoined from confusing the public. [3]

Case facts

Plaintiff, Dial-A-Mattress, is a retail dealer that sells mattresses primarily over the phone. Since 1976, Dial-A-Mattress phone number in the N.Y. metropolitan area has been 628-8737 or M-A-T-T-R-E-S on the telephone dial. Dial-A-Mattress has long since advertised this number to the public. [1]

In order to enable its customers to make toll-free long-distance calls to place orders, Dial-A-Mattress sought to obtain the number 1-800-628-8737; however, AT&T declared the number unavailable until January 1989. [1]

Defendant Anthony Page, was in the business of selling beds before deciding to expand his business into mattresses. In order to obtain a telephone number for his new mattress business, Page bought the telephone number of a company that went out of business whose number began with 1-800-MAT and then later exchanged the last four digits to become 1-800-628-8737 or 1-800-MATTRES. [1]

Page was fully aware of Dial-A-Mattress's business number (628-8737) before buying the 1-800 number. He advertised it as 1-800-MATTRESS. Although the ‘S’ at the end of the number seems to add an extra digit than what a normal telephone number would, dialing the extra ‘S’ made no difference; the call would still be placed as 1-800-628-8737. [1]

Procedural history

Following the events stated above, Dial-A-Mattress filed a complaint against Page seeking an injunction, an accounting, and damages on claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment under federal and New York law. A temporary restraining order was issued, enjoining Page from using the 1-800-MATTRESS number and the case was set for an evidentiary hearing. [1]

Ultimately, the District Judge issued a preliminary injunction and held that although Page was allowed to use the 1-800-MATTRES(S) number, Page was to notify the telephone company not to connect to Page's number any calls that came from certain area codes in the New York area (201, 212, 516, 203, and 718), thus disclaiming itself from Dial-A-Mattress's business. [1]

Page appealed. [1]

Issue

As stated by the Appeals Court, the "somewhat novel" issue raised in this case is whether it is unfair competition for a business to acquire a telephone number identified by the spelling of a generic term that a competitor is using (albeit with a spelling modification) to identify its telephone number.

Court of appeals ruling and reasoning

From the start, the court noted that Dial–A–Mattress could not claim trademark rights in the word “mattress” used solely to identify its company or its product. It further stated that protection would not be available if the word was used for these purposes with a spelling variation that did not change the generic significance for the buyer, such as “MATTRES.” [4]

The court then noted that a second comer may be enjoined from passing itself off as the first user and may be required to take steps to distinguish itself from the first user. [3]

Getting to the crux of the matter, the court stated that telephone numbers may be protected as trademarks, and a competitor's use of a confusingly similar telephone number may be enjoined as both trademark infringement and unfair competition, [2] especially when companies doing significant business through telephone orders frequently promote their telephone numbers as a key identification of the source of their products.

The court concluded by affirming the preliminary injunction and reasoned that although one company's use of a generic term does not preclude competitors to use the term for their own business purposes, it does not mean competitors may use the term to deceive the public with a confusingly similar use of that term. [1] It stated that the District Court was clearly entitled to conclude that defendant's use of the telephone number 1–800–628–8737 was confusingly similar to plaintiff's telephone number 628–8737 in those area code regions in which plaintiff solicited telephone orders, especially in view of defendant's identification of its number as 1–800–MATTRESS after plaintiff had promoted identification of its number as (area code)-MATTRES.

See also

Related Research Articles

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lanham Act</span> United States trademark law

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub. L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d),(passed as part of Pub. L. 106–113 ) is a U.S. law enacted in 1999 that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name. The law was designed to thwart "cybersquatters" who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party. Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech, while others dispute these complaints. Before the ACPA was enacted, trademark owners relied heavily on the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) to sue domain name registrants. The FTDA was enacted in 1995 in part with the intent to curb domain name abuses. The legislative history of the FTDA specifically mentions that trademark dilution in domain names was a matter of Congressional concern motivating the Act. Senator Leahy stated that "it is my hope that this anti-dilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991</span> U.S. federal law

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) was passed by the United States Congress in 1991 and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush as Public Law 102-243. It amended the Communications Act of 1934. The TCPA is codified as 47 U.S.C. § 227. The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment. The TCPA limits companies or debt collectors from calling clients or prospective customers using automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages, and fax machines. It also specifies several technical requirements for fax machines, autodialers, and voice messaging systems—principally with provisions requiring identification and contact information of the entity using the device to be contained in the message.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<i>Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.</i>

Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., 426 F.3d 1001, is a trademark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the name of one of the largest ice cream truck franchise companies in the United States was neither distinctive nor famous enough to receive protection against being used in a violent video game.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

A teledotcom is a domain name that not only spells a memorable word but also has a matching toll-free telephone number. This means the word that spells something will have a toll-free prefix and a top level domain extension after it. A teledotcom can be accessible by either phone or internet address.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Doctrine of foreign equivalents</span> Rule in trademark law

The doctrine of foreign equivalents is a rule applied in United States trademark law which requires courts and the TTAB to translate foreign words in determining whether they are registrable as trademarks, or confusingly similar with existing marks. The doctrine is intended to protect consumers within the United States from confusion or deception caused by the use of terms in different languages. In some cases, a party will use a word as a mark which is either generic or merely descriptive of the goods in a foreign language, or which shares the same meaning as an existing mark to speakers of that foreign language.

<i>Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci</i> American legal case

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 WL 133313, was a court ruling at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The ruling was an important early precedent on the trademark value of a domain name on the World Wide Web, and established the theory that hosting a site under a domain name that was the registered trademark of a different party constituted trademark infringement.

<i>Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.</i> Legal case

Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. 5:03-cv-05340, was a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The court concluded that, pending the outcome of a jury trial, Google AdWords may be in violation of trademark law because it (1) allowed arbitrary advertisers to key their ads to American Blind's trademarks and (2) may confuse search-engine users initially interested in visiting American Blind's website into visiting its competitors' websites.

<i>Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.</i>

The case Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation, 174 F.3d 1036, heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, established that trademark infringement could occur through the use of trademarked terms in the HTML metatags of web pages when initial interest confusion was likely to result.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

<i>Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.</i> American legal case

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. 562 F.3d 123, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement.

<i>1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop-up advertisements. It was brought by 1-800 Contacts, an online distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow, a maker of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers, as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS when people viewed the company's web site, were "inherently deceptive" and that one of the advertisements "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

1800Mattress.com was an American bedding retailer headquartered in Hicksville, New York and famous for its ads that used the slogan "leave off the last S for savings".

<i>Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV</i>

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989, was a court case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which enjoined iCraveTV, a Canadian TV streaming website, from operating within the US after finding it in violation of 20th Century Fox's, and several other motion picture studios and television networks, copyrights and trademarks. Granted February 8, 2000, this injunction, along with continued legal pressure, led to the iCraveTV's demise just 3 months after its debut. As of March 28, 2019, the library is included due to Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox.

The misappropriation doctrine is a U.S. legal theory conferring a "quasi-property right" on a person who invests "labor, skill, and money" to create an intangible asset. The right operates against another person "endeavoring to reap where it has not sown" by "misappropriating" the value of the asset. The quoted language and the legal principle come from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case.

United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., was a 2005 Third Circuit antitrust decision in the United States finding that Dentsply, a monopolist manufacturer-supplier of dental supplies, used its exclusive dealing policy to keep rival firms' sales "below the critical level necessary for any rival to pose a real threat to Dentsply's market share,".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Anthony Page, 880F.2d675 (2d Cir.1989).
  2. 1 2 Chicago World's Fair–1992 Corp. v. The 1992 Chicago World's Fair Comm'n,Civ. No.83-C-3424(N.D. Ill.Aug. 16, 1983).
  3. 1 2 Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. , 305 U.S. 111 (1938).
  4. ↑ Miller Brewing Co. v. Heileman Brewing Co., 561F.2d75 (7th Cir.1977).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.