Friend v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Friend Brown v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Brown

Ninth Circuit

Friend v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Friend Brown v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Brown

184 F.2d 684, 87 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 294, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4242

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1950

Docket12408_1

StatusPublished

This text of 184 F.2d 684 (Friend v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Friend Brown v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friend v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Friend Brown v. Granat Bros. Granat Bros. v. Brown, 184 F.2d 684, 87 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 294, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4242 (9th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

*685 PER CURIAM.

Appellant Granat Bros, has for a number of years advertised and marketed at wholesale and retail a wedding and engagement ring ensemble for which it has registered and used the trade-mark “WedLolc.” In use its rings are mechanically locked or fastened together. Claiming infringement and unfair competition, it brought suit to enjoin Samuel H. Friend and others from using the trade-mark “Feature Lock” in the advertising and sale at retail of similar wedding and engagement ring ensembles purchased from Feature Ring Co., Inc. The latter, which is in the business of manufacturing and selling at wholesale interlocking ring mountings under the Feature Lock trade-mark, intervened as a defendant and filed a counterclaim alleging harrassment by Granat Bros, of Feature’s customers and potential customers by unwarranted claims of infringement.

Upon the trial the court found that the Wed-Lok trade-mark is not primarily descriptive, as asserted by Feature, but is used in a suggestive or figurative sense, and is a valid mark. It found, on the other hand, that the words Feature Lock are sufficiently distinct from Granat Bros.’ mark as to preclude likelihood that the Feature Ring Co.’s product will be passed off as those of Granat, and further, that the evidence failed to show confusion in the minds of customers; hence that neither infringement nor unfair competition had been established. In respect of the counterclaim interposed by Feature Ring Co., it found that the notices of infringement sent out by Granat to the customers of the former were sent in good faith, and that since suit was seasonably brought by Granat, no sufficient grounds existed for Feature’s counterclaim.

Both sides have appealed. We see no reversible error in the findings or decision below, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

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

*685 PER CURIAM.

Appellant Granat Bros, has for a number of years advertised and marketed at wholesale and retail a wedding and engagement ring ensemble for which it has registered and used the trade-mark “WedLolc.” In use its rings are mechanically locked or fastened together. Claiming infringement and unfair competition, it brought suit to enjoin Samuel H. Friend and others from using the trade-mark “Feature Lock” in the advertising and sale at retail of similar wedding and engagement ring ensembles purchased from Feature Ring Co., Inc. The latter, which is in the business of manufacturing and selling at wholesale interlocking ring mountings under the Feature Lock trade-mark, intervened as a defendant and filed a counterclaim alleging harrassment by Granat Bros, of Feature’s customers and potential customers by unwarranted claims of infringement.

Upon the trial the court found that the Wed-Lok trade-mark is not primarily descriptive, as asserted by Feature, but is used in a suggestive or figurative sense, and is a valid mark. It found, on the other hand, that the words Feature Lock are sufficiently distinct from Granat Bros.’ mark as to preclude likelihood that the Feature Ring Co.’s product will be passed off as those of Granat, and further, that the evidence failed to show confusion in the minds of customers; hence that neither infringement nor unfair competition had been established. In respect of the counterclaim interposed by Feature Ring Co., it found that the notices of infringement sent out by Granat to the customers of the former were sent in good faith, and that since suit was seasonably brought by Granat, no sufficient grounds existed for Feature’s counterclaim.

Both sides have appealed. We see no reversible error in the findings or decision below, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F.2d 684, 87 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 294, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friend-v-granat-bros-granat-bros-v-friend-brown-v-granat-bros-granat-ca9-1950.