TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Capehart v. Lund

Capehart v. Lund, 107 F. Supp. 10 (D. Alaska 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, D. Alaska · Federal District Courts
Decided
August 27, 1952
Docket
No. A-7615
Judges
Folta
Citations
107 F. Supp. 1014 Alaska 1194 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 2941952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3723

Opinion of the Court — Folta

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

FOLTA, District Judge.

Early in the year 1951 the plaintiff established a motor trucking business at Anchorage, operating his trucks between Anchorage and Seward and other cities. Later the defendant commenced operations between Anchorage and Seward, and adopted the name of Anchorage Freight Distributors. Plaintiff now seeks to enjoin the infringement of his trade name “Anchorage Freight Lines”.

The evidence shows that as a result of use and advertising, the name “Anchorage Freight Lines” came to be identified in the mind of the public in the area of Anchorage and vicinity with the services rendered by the plaintiff. It further appears that as a result of the use of the words “Anchorage Freight” in the names *11 of both businesses, which have their headquarters at Anchorage and render the same services in the area referred to, much confusion has ensued as to identity, to the prejudice of the plaintiff.

The defendant contends that the words “Anchorage Freight” are geographical and descriptive of the services and, hence, the use of them cannot become the basis for the rights asserted by the plaintiff. This is a well known limitation on the establishment of trade-marks, but is not applicable to trade names. Restatement of Torts, Sections 715 and 716.

Ñor is it material whether or not the defendant acted with fraudulent intent to harm the plaintiff. Restatement of Torts, Section 717, comment (a).

I am of the opinion, therefore, that the defendant should be permanently enjoined from using the name “Anchorage Freight Distributors” in connection with his transportation business in Anchorage and Seward and vicinity.

An attorney’s fee of $500 is allowed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1955: 11960: 11962: 11963: 11980: 12023: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Black Hills Jewelry Manufacturing Co. v. LaBelle's489 F. Supp. 754 (D.S.D. 1980)
  2. A. Smith Bowman Distillery, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc.204 F. Supp. 374 (D. Del. 1962)
  3. Alaska Sales & Service, Inc. v. Rutledge128 F. Supp. 1 (D. Alaska 1955)
  4. Belvidere Land Co. v. Owen Park Plaza, Inc.106 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 1960)
  5. Straus Frank Co. v. Brown159 So. 2d 570 (La. Ct. App. 1963)
  6. Sihler v. The Fulfillment Lab, IncNo. 3:20-cv-01528 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023)

Most recent

  1. Sihler v. The Fulfillment Lab, IncNo. 3:20-cv-01528 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023)
  2. Black Hills Jewelry Manufacturing Co. v. LaBelle's489 F. Supp. 754 (D.S.D. 1980)
  3. Straus Frank Co. v. Brown159 So. 2d 570 (La. Ct. App. 1963)
  4. A. Smith Bowman Distillery, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc.204 F. Supp. 374 (D. Del. 1962)
  5. Belvidere Land Co. v. Owen Park Plaza, Inc.106 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 1960)
  6. Alaska Sales & Service, Inc. v. Rutledge128 F. Supp. 1 (D. Alaska 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list