Dawn Donut Company, Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc.
267 F.2d 358 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Lanham Act, a senior federal trademark registrant cannot enjoin a junior user's use of the mark in a geographically separate market unless there is a present likelihood of public confusion, which requires a showing that the registrant is likely to expand into the junior user's area. However, the federal registration's constructive notice provision preserves the senior user's superior right to use the mark upon future expansion into that territory.
Facts:
- Since 1922, Dawn Donut Co., Inc. has sold doughnut and baked goods mixes wholesale to bakers under its federally registered trademark 'Dawn'.
- Dawn Donut Co. licenses some bakers who purchase its mixes to use the 'Dawn' trademark for retail sales to the public.
- For approximately 30 years prior to the lawsuit, Dawn Donut Co. had not licensed its mark for retail use in the six-county Rochester, New York, area, although it continued to sell its mixes wholesale there.
- In 1951, Hart Food Stores, Inc. began using the mark 'Dawn' for its own retail sales of doughnuts and baked goods within that same six-county Rochester area.
- Hart adopted the 'Dawn' mark without actual knowledge of Dawn Donut Co.'s prior use or registration, inspired by its own former slogan, 'Baked at midnight, delivered at Dawn'.
- Hart's use of the 'Dawn' mark is strictly confined to its retail grocery chain within a 45-mile radius of Rochester.
- Dawn Donut Co.'s federal registration, renewed in 1947, provided constructive notice of its ownership claim nationwide under the Lanham Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Donut Co., Inc. sued Hart Food Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York for trademark infringement.
- Hart Food Stores, Inc. filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Dawn Donut Co.'s federal trademark registrations.
- The district court, as the court of first instance, dismissed both the plaintiff's complaint for infringement and the defendant's counterclaim for cancellation.
- Both parties appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 the owner of a federal trademark registration have the right to enjoin a junior user's use of the same mark in a geographically separate market where there is no present likelihood of public confusion and no immediate plan for the registrant to expand into that market?
Opinions:
Majority - Lumbard, Circuit Judge
No. A federal registrant is not entitled to an injunction against a junior user in a separate geographic market without a showing of a present likelihood of confusion or expansion. The Lanham Act's constructive notice provision (15 U.S.C.A. § 1072) grants nationwide protection to a registered mark and eliminates the defense of good faith for a junior user in a remote area. This means Hart's use, although innocent, cannot give it superior rights to the mark. However, the standard for granting an injunction under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114 is the 'likelihood of public confusion.' Here, the parties operate in distinct and geographically separate retail markets, and baked goods are typically purchased locally, so no current public confusion is likely. Furthermore, the court found no reasonable expectation that Dawn Donut Co. would expand its retail operations into Hart's area, given its 30-year absence and the declining number of its licensees. Therefore, while Dawn Donut Co.'s rights are preserved for the future, it is not entitled to an injunction at this time.
Dissenting - Lumbard, Circuit Judge
This is a partial dissent regarding the defendant's counterclaim to cancel the plaintiff's trademark registration. The dissent argues that the district court's finding that Dawn Donut Co. exercised sufficient quality control over its licensees was based on conclusory findings and insufficient evidence. A trademark licensor has an affirmative duty under the Lanham Act to police its licensees to prevent the mark from losing its significance as an indicator of origin, a failure of which constitutes 'naked licensing' and abandonment. The record was unclear on the nature and extent of the supervision plaintiff actually exercised. Therefore, the counterclaim issue should be remanded to the district court for more extensive findings on whether plaintiff's supervision was adequate to satisfy the Act's requirements.
Analysis:
This case establishes the influential 'Dawn Donut Rule,' which balances the nationwide rights of a federal trademark registrant against the localized use of a good-faith junior user. It clarifies that federal registration provides nationwide priority, preventing a junior user from ever acquiring superior rights, but this priority right remains dormant in remote geographic areas. The registrant can only enforce its right via injunction upon demonstrating a present likelihood of confusion, typically through evidence of probable expansion into the junior user's territory. This decision protects a federal registrant's future expansion plans while allowing a junior user to continue operating in a separate market until that expansion becomes likely, thus preventing the unnecessary disruption of local businesses.
Unlock the full brief for Dawn Donut Company, Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc.