Home/S.D. New York/Hershey Creamery Co. v. Hershey Chocolate Corp.

Hershey Creamery Co. v. Hershey Chocolate Corp.

269 F. Supp. 45, 153 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 794, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1440, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11326
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 8, 1967
DocketCiv. A. 66-3915
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 269 F. Supp. 45 (Hershey Creamery Co. v. Hershey Chocolate Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hershey Creamery Co. v. Hershey Chocolate Corp., 269 F. Supp. 45, 153 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 794, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1440, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11326 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

Opinion

Motion for Preliminary Injunction Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

MOTLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Hershey Creamery Company (Creamery), is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Its chief business interest in this law suit is the manufacture and sale, in interstate commerce, of ice cream and ice cream products under the trade name and trademark HERSHEY’S. One of plaintiff’s products is chocolate covered ice cream bars which bear its trademark HERSHEY’S.

Defendant Hershey Chocolate Corporation (Chocolate) is also a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Hershey, Pennsylvania. This defendant’s business is the manufacture and sale of chocolate bars, chocolate coatings and many other kinds of chocolate products, likewise in interstate commerce, under its famous trademark HERSHEY’S.

Defendant Consolidated Foods Corporation (Joe Lowe) is a Maryland corporation with a place of business in New Jersey. This second defendant, and in particular its Joe Lowe Company Division, is the owner of the well known trademark CHEERIO for chocolate coated ice cream bars. Defendant Consolidated and its Joe Lowe Division are engaged in the business of licensing companies throughout the country in the production of chocolate covered ice cream bars and in the use of its trademark CHEERIO.

Defendant Chocolate recently licensed the other defendant to use and sublicense the use of Chocolate’s well known trademark HERSHEY’S, under certain conditions, in connection with defendant’s ice cream bar business.

Both defendants are licensed to do business in New York. 1

On November 17, 1966, plaintiff commenced this action. In its complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants are infringing plaintiff’s registered trademark HERSHEY’S in the ice cream bar field, unfairly competing with plaintiff in violation of the common law, and using false designations of origin, false descriptions, and false representations as to the ice cream bars sponsored by defendants. Plaintiff’s first cause of action arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Plaintiff’s second cause of action is based in the common law. Plaintiff’s third cause of action arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

The relief sought by plaintiff is a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining defendants from the unlawful conduct alleged as well as costs, attorneys fees, loss of profits and other appropri *48 ate relief. Plaintiff does not seek to bar defendants from using the famous trademark HERSHEY’S in any fashion. The injunctive relief sought would not debar use 'Of said mark “when it appears within other text material which clearly and specifically associates said mark only with the chocolate coating or flavoring of the Ice Cream Product to which it relates and where such coating or flavoring is supplied by Chocolate.”

Defendants have denied all alleged violations of law and have counterclaimed. Defendants seek a declaration that plaintiff’s trademark, Registration No. 665,-835, is invalid, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, and in connection therewith damages, 15 U.S.C. § 1120. Defendants seek damages allegedly sustained by them as a result of acts of trade libel and interference with their business relations with third parties. Defendants, in addition, seek injunctive relief to prevent plaintiff from releasing further advertisements or statements attacking defendants directly or indirectly. Defendants further desire to recover their attorney’s fees and costs.

Plaintiff’s reply to defendants’ counterclaims contains additional claims seeking to: 1) have defendants’ licensing program deemed invalid as a deception of the public, 15 U.S.C. § 1055; 2) have defendants’ licensing program deemed invalid because defendants fail to exercise legitimate control over the quality of the goods to be produced under the licensing agreement, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1055, 1127; and 3) have defendants’ licensing program deemed invalid as a violation of the antitrust laws, to wit: 15 U.S.C. §§ 14, 18, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 3.

This court has jurisdiction of this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and (b) and 15 U.S.C. § 1121.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was filed January 30, 1967, and heard by this court on February 14, 1967. 2 The motion for preliminary injunction is denied. There are disputed questions of fact which should be resolved in a trial of the issues and not by the weighty affidavits in which these disputed facts are found. The issues raised by the pleadings also make it unclear, at this juncture, what relief the parties will ultimately be entitled to under the applicable law. In short, plaintiff has not sustained its heavy burden of proof, required in a case of this kind, for the grant of a preliminary injunction. The finding's of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds for the court’s action, as required by Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., are set forth below.

On January 3, 1928, plaintiff obtained Trademark Registration No. 237,315 for the name HERSHEY’S for use on ice cream and butter products. This registration expired in 1948. On August 12, 1958, plaintiff became the owner of Trademark Registration No. 665,835 for the name HERSHEY’S on ice cream and *49 butter products. This second registration was issued after first being rejected on the ground that it would likely cause confusion with the trademark of defendant Chocolate (Reg.No.54,041 of June 19, 1906). In 1963, plaintiff filed in the Patent Office with respect to the 1958 registration the use affidavit required by 15 U.S.C. § 1058(a). Thereafter, plaintiff’s right to use its registered HERSHEY’S mark in commerce for ice cream and butter became incontestable, 15 U.S. C. § 1065, except as to one of the grounds for which application to cancel a trademark may be filed, at any time, under 15 U.S.C. § 1064(c). That section provides, in part, for cancellation “[a]t any time if the registered mark * * * or

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

Related

Andy Warhol Enterprises, Inc. v. Time Inc.
700 F. Supp. 760 (S.D. New York, 1988)
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.
614 F. Supp. 1278 (S.D. New York, 1985)
30 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1137, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,269, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 279 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sylvia Cooper Constance Russell Helen Moore and Elmore Hannah, Jr. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Phyllis Baxter Brenda Gilliam Glenda Knotts Alfred Harrison and Sherri McCorkle v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
698 F.2d 633 (Fourth Circuit, 1983)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
698 F.2d 633 (Fourth Circuit, 1983)
Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United States
3 Ct. Int'l Trade 171 (Court of International Trade, 1982)
Roll Form Products, Inc. v. All State Trucking Co. (In Re Roll Form Products, Inc.)
8 B.R. 479 (S.D. New York, 1981)
Continental Connector Corp. v. Continental Specialties Corp.
492 F. Supp. 1088 (D. Connecticut, 1979)
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
409 F. Supp. 297 (District of Columbia, 1976)
Fidelity Mortgage Investors v. First National City Bank
387 F. Supp. 544 (S.D. New York, 1974)
Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. Steinberg
339 F. Supp. 836 (E.D. New York, 1971)
Pic Design Corp. v. Bearings Specialty Co., Inc.
436 F.2d 804 (First Circuit, 1971)
United States v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
306 F. Supp. 766 (D. Connecticut, 1969)
Citizens Committee for the Hudson Valley v. Volpe
297 F. Supp. 804 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Caribbean Atlantic Airlines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers
283 F. Supp. 601 (D. Puerto Rico, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 F. Supp. 45, 153 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 794, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1440, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hershey-creamery-co-v-hershey-chocolate-corp-nysd-1967.