Norman M. Morris Corporation v. Hyman Weinstein, D/B/A Bright Star Enterprise

466 F.2d 137, 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 130, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7927
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 14, 1972
Docket71-2922
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 466 F.2d 137 (Norman M. Morris Corporation v. Hyman Weinstein, D/B/A Bright Star Enterprise) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Norman M. Morris Corporation v. Hyman Weinstein, D/B/A Bright Star Enterprise, 466 F.2d 137, 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 130, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7927 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

ORIE L. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge:

Norman M. Morris Corporation, 1 brought this action against Hyman Weinstein, doing business as Bright Star Enterprises, 2 seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against Weinstein from doing certain acts which Morris Corporation alleged constituted unfair competition as against it.

After the complaint and answer had been filed and certain preliminary motions disposed of, Morris Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment. After discovery proceedings had been completed, depositions of Milton H. Davis and Weinstein had been taken and filed, an affidavit of Maurice Burns had been filed, a pretrial conference had been held, and a pretrial stipulation had been entered into and filed, the court considered a written memorandum filed by Morris Corporation and a written memorandum filed by counsel for Weinstein and granted a permanent injunction.

The trial court’s findings and conclusions of law are set out in note 3 hereto. 3

*139 There is no substantial dispute as to the facts, which are these:

Morris Corporation is incorporated under the laws of New York. Its principal office is located in the Omega Building in New York City.

The Omega Watch Company of Switzerland for more than 40 years has been manufacturing watches bearing its trademark, “Omega.” Its trademark, “Omega,” is registered in the United States.

For many years the general public has believed that a watch bearing such trademark is a watch manufactured, sold, and guaranteed by the Omega Watch Company, and sold by authorized retail dealers who fully service such watches. For more than 40 years, under a written agreement entered into by the Omega Watch Company and Morris Corporation, the latter had the exclusive right in what are now the 50 states of the United States and Puerto Rico to sell Omega watches, purchased from the Omega Watch Company. The agreement specifically authorized the Morris Corporation to affix the Omega trademark on faces and cases manufactured by or for it, provided that such faces and cases were of the usual Omega quality and were to be used with Omega movements.

Morris Corporation has no warehouse facilities, no wholesalers, and no jobbers in Florida or elsewhere in the exclusive territory granted to it. It contracts with a Florida repair service to repair Omega watches sold by it in Florida. It owns no interest in such repair service. It sells only to authorized retail dealers.

Its sole employee in Florida is Milton H. Davis. He is a salesman and takes orders from retail purchasers in Florida and Puerto Rico who handle Omega watches purchased from Morris Corporation. He sends such orders by mail to Morris Corporation in New York City and it sends to retail dealers the watch or watches ordered by them by interstate transportation.

In his deposition taken by the Morris Corporation, Weinstein testified to the following facts:

Weinstein carried on his business under the name “Bright Star Enterprise” for about two and one-half years prior to the day he gave his deposition, which was December 9, 1970. His place of business was Oak Park, Michigan.

During the two-and-one-half-year period, Weinstein made trips to Europe from time to time and purchased watches bearing the name “Omega,” the trademark of the Omega Watch Company, from six different retail dealers in Austria, Germany, and Italy. He refused to identify any of the retail dealers from whom he purchased such watches, giving as a reason that if he did so, he would no longer be able to purchase such watches from them. He personally brought the watches so purchased back to the United States, passed them through the United States customs, and paid the import duties thereon. He resold such watches to retail dealers in all of the states of the United States. He used the mails to solicit orders for such watches from retail dealers in other states than Michigan, received orders from such retail dealers in other states than Michigan, and filled such orders by sending the watches from Michigan through the United States mails to retail dealers in other states who had ordered them. He also made some sales in Florida and possibly in other states by personal solicitation.

During the two-and-one-half-year period, he sold about 3,000 of such watches *140 to retail dealers in the United States. He admitted that such watches bore no identifying serial numbers.

The evidence fully established that the watches which Weinstein sold to retail dealers in Florida and other states had imprinted thereon the word “Omega,” the trademark of the Omega Watch Company, and that the boxes or containers in which such watches were sold had printed thereon what purported to be the guarantee of the Omega Watch Company, but which in fact was not the genuine guarantee of such company.

The watches were sold by Weinstein in Florida and other states as new Omega watches, when in fact the digits in the serial numbers on the movements of such watches, with which they could be identified as watches made by the Omega Watch Company and tied to a guarantee by the Omega Company, had been drilled out.

Weinstein testified that after the Morris Corporation refused to honor the guarantees on the boxes or containers of the watches so sold by him, he prepared a guarantee which read:

“GUARANTEE “This Omega watch has been electronically tested and checked when it entered our stock. _ guarantees the movement against defective parts and workmanship for one year from date of purchase, and will repair or replace any movement which fails to perform properly because of such defects during the life of the guarantee. With proper care, your watch will give you long, dependable service. Date _ Model _ Authorized _”

It will be noted that such guarantee prepared by Weinstein purported to be a guarantee of an Omega watch. It recites, “This Omega watch * * *.” The customer who purchased such a watch from a retail dealer to whom Weinstein had sold it would believe it to be an Omega Watch Company guarantee.

Weinstein testified that the retailer or his clerk, whoever sold a Weinstein watch to a customer, was to sign his name in the blank in the guarantee form following the word “Authorized.” The evidence does not disclose what was to be filled in the blank following the word “stock.” If it were to be “Weinstein” or “Bright Star Enterprise” it is reasonable to assume it would have been so printed on the form.

It is well settled that one of the purposes which the law intends to subserve when it gives a right to an injured person to protection from unfair competition and provides a remedy to bring about such protection, is to afford protection also to the general public. 4

Weinstein also admitted that the watches which he sold bore no identifying serial numbers.

In his deposition, Milton H. Davis testified that he was a state representative of the Morris Corporation; that what purported to be Omega watches had been purchased from Weinstein by L.

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

Related

Veldora Arthur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
569 F. App'x 669 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)
Shell Co., Ltd. v. LOS FRAILES SERVICE STATION
596 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D. Puerto Rico, 2008)
Board of Supervisors of La. State v. Smack Apparel Co.
438 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D. Louisiana, 2006)
Montblanc-Simplo GMBH v. Staples, Inc.
172 F. Supp. 2d 231 (D. Massachusetts, 2001)
Carillon Importers Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Group, Inc.
913 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Florida, 1996)
People v. Superior Court (Shayan)
21 Cal. App. 4th 621 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc.
777 F. Supp. 161 (D. Puerto Rico, 1991)
Gaston's White River Resort v. Rush
701 F. Supp. 1431 (W.D. Arkansas, 1988)
Dial Corp. v. Encina Corp.
643 F. Supp. 951 (S.D. Florida, 1986)
Hopkins v. Powers
497 N.E.2d 757 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
466 F.2d 137, 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 130, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-m-morris-corporation-v-hyman-weinstein-dba-bright-star-ca5-1972.