D. C. Catering Company, Inc., T/a Peking Palace v. Peking Restaurant, Inc.

D.C. Circuit

D. C. Catering Company, Inc., T/a Peking Palace v. Peking Restaurant, Inc.

230 F.2d 823, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 273, 108 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 160, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5392

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1956

Docket12859

StatusPublished

This text of 230 F.2d 823 (D. C. Catering Company, Inc., T/a Peking Palace v. Peking Restaurant, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D. C. Catering Company, Inc., T/a Peking Palace v. Peking Restaurant, Inc., 230 F.2d 823, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 273, 108 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 160, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5392 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court concluded that unfair competition resulted from appellants’ use of the name “Peking Palace” for their new restaurant in view of ap-pellees’ long prior and continued use of the name “Peking Restaurant” for their restaurant located about twenty blocks away on the same street. This conclusion was based on a finding that the word “Peking,” as used by appellees, is “not descriptive of a style of [Chinese] cooking,” but instead is an “arbitrary or fanciful” designation which identifies ap-pellees’ restaurant to its patrons. The court also concluded that appellants had improperly used a fanciful name and secret recipe for soup which appellees had developed.

Since we think these conclusions are supported by the evidence and the law applicable thereto, we affirm the District Court’s injunction prohibiting appellants from unfairly competing in the respects enumerated.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The District Court concluded that unfair competition resulted from appellants’ use of the name “Peking Palace” for their new restaurant in view of ap-pellees’ long prior and continued use of the name “Peking Restaurant” for their restaurant located about twenty blocks away on the same street. This conclusion was based on a finding that the word “Peking,” as used by appellees, is “not descriptive of a style of [Chinese] cooking,” but instead is an “arbitrary or fanciful” designation which identifies ap-pellees’ restaurant to its patrons. The court also concluded that appellants had improperly used a fanciful name and secret recipe for soup which appellees had developed.

Since we think these conclusions are supported by the evidence and the law applicable thereto, we affirm the District Court’s injunction prohibiting appellants from unfairly competing in the respects enumerated.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 F.2d 823, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 273, 108 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 160, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-c-catering-company-inc-ta-peking-palace-v-peking-restaurant-inc-cadc-1956.