PRS Materials, Inc. v. Green Acres Nursery & Garden Center, Inc.

155 F. Supp. 2d 326, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6323, 2001 WL 530721
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 9, 2001
DocketCIV. A.2000-2377
StatusPublished

This text of 155 F. Supp. 2d 326 (PRS Materials, Inc. v. Green Acres Nursery & Garden Center, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
PRS Materials, Inc. v. Green Acres Nursery & Garden Center, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 326, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6323, 2001 WL 530721 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

GILES, Chief Judge.

Introduction

PRS Materials, Inc. (“PRS”), maker of Earthmate compost, brought this action alleging that Green Acres Nursery & Garden Center, Inc. (“Green Acres”) sold a compost under the names Earthmate or Earthlife when the compost in question was actually a brand called Mascaro. PRS alleges 1) false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); 2) infringement of a federally registered trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114; 3) violations of state common law through trademark infringement, dilution of mark, injury to business reputation, and unfair competition; and 4) a violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act.

A Bench Trial was held in this matter from April 18 to April 23, 2001. At trial, PRS did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Green Acres sold Masca-ro compost under the Earthmate or Earth-life name. Accordingly, this court enters judgment on all counts in favor of Green Acres.

Parties

1. PRS is a Pennsylvania corporation formed for the purpose of distributing a compost product.

2. Green Acres is a garden center where retail customers can purchase flowers, trees, shrubs, mulch and other typical home gardening materials. Green Acres also designs and installs landscapes for customers’ homes.

Jurisdiction

This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) which gives federal courts original jurisdiction over federal claims related to trademark infringement. Further, there is original jurisdiction over Green Acres’ claims of unfair competition under state statute and state common law, since there are unfair competition claims joined with a substantial and related federal trademark claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b). There is supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims since they are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Contentions of Plaintiff

1. PRS contends that, from March 1998 to May 2000, Green Acres sold bulk compost under the Earthmate name when the compost in question was actually a product named Mascaro. PRS alleges two forms of proof of this contention.

2. First, it notes that Green Acres significantly decreased its purchases of the bulk Earthmate product from PRS be *328 tween March of 1998 and May of 2000. Further, between March of 1998 and May of 2000, Green Acres purchased 9,273.5 cubic yards of bulk compost from a company called Mascaro. Since, during the relevant time period, Green Acres ostensibly only advertised for sale to customers the Earthmate compost product, PRS wishes this court to infer that Green Acres was selling the Mascaro product under the Earthmate name.

3.Second, PRS sent Frank Boyer, the Secretary of PRS, on an undercover investigative mission to Green Acres Nursery. Mr. Boyer told a Green Acres salesperson that he was interested in buying Earth-mate compost in bulk. The salesperson took Mr. Boyer to the back of the store and pointed to a pile of compost about ten yards away. The salesperson told Mr. Boyer that if he ordered Earthmate, he would receive compost from that pile. Mr. Boyer formed the belief that the pile of compost that he saw had less wood chips and was a lighter color than the Earth-mate product. He concluded that if he would have actually ordered the compost, he would have received product other than Earthmate despite the salesperson’s assurances that he would receive Earthmate.

Contentions of Defendant

1. Green Acres contends that Earth-mate compost was the only bulk compost product that it sold to its customers at the Green Acres Nursery during the relevant time period.

2. Green Acres contends that it began purchasing the Mascaro product in 1998 because it started using the product in its growing fields, in its potted plants and shrubs, and as soil enrichment as part of its landscape installations.

3. Green Acres contends that it decreased its purchases of the Earthmate product in bulk because it switched to Mascaro for its non-retail compost uses and because retail demand for the product as a top soil dressing declined in the late 1990s.

Undisputed Facts

1. PRS has been distributing compost since 1984. PRS’s president is Rick Turner. Its secretary is Frank Boyer.

2. From 1984 to 1994, PRS Materials was the exclusive marketer of a compost material called “Earthlife.” The “Earth-life” name was a registered trademark of Del Chem Sales which obtained compost from Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and Baltimore, and sold it to PRS Materials.

3. PRS typically sells the compost to nurseries and garden centers, which in turn, sell the product to retail customers.

4. Sometime around 1986 or 1987, Green Acres began to carry the Earthlife product. (Exhibit P-24, Exhibit P-5, Transcript 4/11/01, p. 65).

5. In the early 1990’s, PRS obtained the right to purchase compost directly from the City of Philadelphia and distribute it to nurseries and garden centers.

6. At that time, PRS wished to obtain the right to use the Earthlife name, but due to the sale and restructuring of Del Chem Sales, the owner of the Earthlife name was “a clouded issue.” (Transcript 4/11/01, p. 61).

7. PRS decided to start calling its product “Earthmate” and began marketing its product as Earthmate around 1994 or 1995. (Transcript 4/11/01, p. 82). PRS became the Registered owner of the Earthmate trademark on October 31, 1995. (Exhibit P-4).

8. At different times, a binding contract required Green Acres to sell only Earthmate or Earthlife compost. But at the times relevant to this case, no binding *329 exclusivity agreement existed. (Transcript 4/11/01, p. 58).

9. During the relevant time period, Green Acres represented to all its customers that either Earthlife or Earthmate was the only compost product it sold. Green Acres made this representation through signs, brochures, newsletters, a display case, and employee interactions with customers. (E.g., Transcript 4/12/01, p. 60-69; Exhibit p-24).

10. During the relevant time period, Earthmate was available at Green Acres in bags and in bulk. Customers typically had bags of compost loaded into their automobiles, while bulk compost was typically loaded onto a Green Acres delivery truck and delivered directly to customers’ homes. It is agreed by both parties that the only compost Green Acres sold in bags during the relevant time period was the Earthmate product. The central dispute is whether Green Acres sold compost in bulk that was not the Earthmate product.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 F. Supp. 2d 326, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6323, 2001 WL 530721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prs-materials-inc-v-green-acres-nursery-garden-center-inc-paed-2001.