Borden Ice Cream Co. v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co.
201 F. 510 (1912)
Rule of Law:
A claim for unfair competition requires that the parties be engaged in actual competition, meaning they must make or deal in the same kind of goods; a company cannot prevent another from using a similar name for a product it does not produce.
Facts:
- Borden's Condensed Milk Co. (appellee) is a well-established company with a significant reputation and goodwill associated with the name 'Borden'.
- Borden's Condensed Milk Co. manufactures and sells various milk products, including condensed milk sold to ice cream manufacturers.
- Borden's Condensed Milk Co. has never manufactured or sold commercial ice cream to the public.
- Borden Ice Cream Co. (appellants) was incorporated for the sole purpose of manufacturing and selling commercial ice cream under the 'Borden' name.
- Borden's Condensed Milk Co. asserts that its corporate charter gives it the power to make ice cream and that it intends to do so in the future.
Procedural Posture:
- Borden's Condensed Milk Co. filed a lawsuit against Borden Ice Cream Co. in the U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction.
- The District Court (trial court) granted the injunction, prohibiting Borden Ice Cream Co. from using the name 'Borden'.
- Borden Ice Cream Co., as the appellant, appealed the District Court's order to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company's use of a family name for a new business constitute unfair competition when an existing, well-known company with the same name does not manufacture or sell the specific product offered by the new business?
Opinions:
Majority - Carpenter, District Judge
No. A claim of unfair competition cannot be sustained in the absence of actual competition between the parties. The core of an unfair competition claim is that one party is passing off its goods as another's, thereby diverting customers. Because the appellants' ice cream does not compete with the appellee's condensed milk, this essential element is missing. The 'secondary meaning' of a name, which associates it with a particular business, has no legal significance unless the two parties make or deal in the same kind of goods. Appellee's mere intention to perhaps one day enter the ice cream market is insufficient to protect a right it has not yet exercised, as the law deals with acts, not intentions. The potential for damage to appellee's milk sales is too speculative and remote to justify an injunction.
Analysis:
This case establishes a strict, early 20th-century interpretation of unfair competition, requiring direct market competition between the plaintiff and defendant. It significantly limits the 'secondary meaning' doctrine, tying its application to scenarios where parties sell the same type of product. The decision rejects the 'zone of expansion' theory, refusing to grant protection to a company for products it merely intends to sell in the future. While later legal developments, particularly the concept of trademark dilution, have expanded protection for famous marks into non-competing fields, this case remains a foundational example of the traditional, narrower view of unfair competition law.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Borden Ice Cream Co. v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co. (1912)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"