Table Supply Stores, Inc. v. Home Supply Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Table Supply Stores, Inc. v. Home Supply Stores, Inc.

155 So. 317, 115 Fla. 188, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1487

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 So. 317 (Table Supply Stores, Inc. v. Home Supply Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Table Supply Stores, Inc. v. Home Supply Stores, Inc., 155 So. 317, 115 Fla. 188, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1487 (Fla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant, The Table Supply Stores, Inc., filed its bill for injunction against the appellee, Home Supply Stores, Inc., seeking to enjoin the use by the appellee of its corporate name, “Home Supply Stores, Inc.,” on the grounds of similarity of the two names' and that the use by the appellee of the latter name in its advertising or otherwise, amounted to unfair competition and was violative of the property right which appellant had acquired in the good will that had attached to appellant’s name, trade practices and methods of doing business.

Appellee filed its answer setting up the fact that it was operating its business under the corporate name approved for it in a charter issued to it by the Secretary of State.' It specifically denied the alleged similarity of names, or use thereof amounting to unfair competition. It asserted that the distinctive name, “Home Supply Stores, Inc.,” had been adopted by it to show that the company was home owned. It further averred that it had acquired the busi *189 ness and good will of a former company, that its advertising was framed to show that it was the successor to said company in order to preserve the good will that it had •acquired. Defendant also denied that it had ever adopted or used its corporate name to deceive the public, either intentionally pr otherwise, into believing its stores were the ■stores of appellant. Its contention is that if any confusion has in fact resulted, it has' been due to carelessness dr inattention on the part of the public, not to design of the defendant.

Our investigation has satisfied us that in its last analysis the present appeal must turn entirely upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor’s finding of facts in the present case. We have found in the record substantial evidence to justify a decree for the defendant on the merits of the issues raised by the averments of defendant’s answer. See Citizens’ Wholesale Supply Co. v. Downing, 107 Oh. St. 422, 140 N. E. Rep. 683.

Decree appealed from affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant, The Table Supply Stores, Inc., filed its bill for injunction against the appellee, Home Supply Stores, Inc., seeking to enjoin the use by the appellee of its corporate name, “Home Supply Stores, Inc.,” on the grounds of similarity of the two names' and that the use by the appellee of the latter name in its advertising or otherwise, amounted to unfair competition and was violative of the property right which appellant had acquired in the good will that had attached to appellant’s name, trade practices and methods of doing business.

Appellee filed its answer setting up the fact that it was operating its business under the corporate name approved for it in a charter issued to it by the Secretary of State.' It specifically denied the alleged similarity of names, or use thereof amounting to unfair competition. It asserted that the distinctive name, “Home Supply Stores, Inc.,” had been adopted by it to show that the company was home owned. It further averred that it had acquired the busi *189 ness and good will of a former company, that its advertising was framed to show that it was the successor to said company in order to preserve the good will that it had •acquired. Defendant also denied that it had ever adopted or used its corporate name to deceive the public, either intentionally pr otherwise, into believing its stores were the ■stores of appellant. Its contention is that if any confusion has in fact resulted, it has' been due to carelessness dr inattention on the part of the public, not to design of the defendant.

Our investigation has satisfied us that in its last analysis the present appeal must turn entirely upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor’s finding of facts in the present case. We have found in the record substantial evidence to justify a decree for the defendant on the merits of the issues raised by the averments of defendant’s answer. See Citizens’ Wholesale Supply Co. v. Downing, 107 Oh. St. 422, 140 N. E. Rep. 683.

Decree appealed from affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 317, 115 Fla. 188, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/table-supply-stores-inc-v-home-supply-stores-inc-fla-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack