Thermocarbon, Inc. v. Dicing Technology, Inc.

567 So. 2d 29, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7129, 1990 WL 134772
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 20, 1990
DocketNo. 90-280
StatusPublished

This text of 567 So. 2d 29 (Thermocarbon, Inc. v. Dicing Technology, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thermocarbon, Inc. v. Dicing Technology, Inc., 567 So. 2d 29, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7129, 1990 WL 134772 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

Thermocarbon, Inc. appeals an order dismissing with prejudice Count II of its complaint which alleged a cause of action for false and deceptive advertising proscribed by the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).1 The basis for the trial court’s dismissal was its finding that the federal court has exclusive original jurisdiction. Because we find the state court has concurrent jurisdiction, we reverse the order and remand to the trial court with instructions to reinstate Count II. See Flagship Real Estate Corp. v. Flagship Banks, Inc., 374 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). See 2 J. McCarthy Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 27:6B (2d ed. 1984) (“Both the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce § 43(a) [15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ] since the act imposes liability in any ‘civil action.’ ”). See also Entex Industries, Inc. v. Warner Communications, 487 F.Supp. 46 (C.D.Cal.1980) (although federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) suits, federal court will abstain from hearing suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition where similar action was brought first in state court); Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Industries, Inc., 14 N.Y.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 223, 197 N.E.2d 620 (1964) (state court held complaint stated a cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and affirmed order denying the motion to dismiss).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.

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

Related

Flagship Real Estate Corp. v. FLAGSHIP BK.
374 So. 2d 1020 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Entex Industries, Inc. v. Warner Communications
487 F. Supp. 46 (C.D. California, 1980)
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Industries, Inc.
197 N.E.2d 620 (New York Court of Appeals, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
567 So. 2d 29, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7129, 1990 WL 134772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thermocarbon-inc-v-dicing-technology-inc-fladistctapp-1990.