L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.

Supreme Court of the United States
35 S. Ct. 91, 235 U.S. 88, 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1005 (1914)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An individual's right to use their own surname in commerce is not absolute and is limited by the principles of unfair competition; a court may require a latecomer to an industry to take reasonable precautions, such as using a full name and a disclaimer, to prevent public confusion with an established competitor who shares the same surname.

Facts:

The L. E. Waterman Company was a long-established and well-known manufacturer of fountain pens.
A man named Arthur A. Waterman began working in the fountain pen business long after the L. E. Waterman Company had become famous.
Arthur A. Waterman entered into a partnership called 'A. A. Waterman & Co.'
This partnership authorized the Modern Pen Company to act as its sole selling agent and use the name 'A. A. Waterman & Co.' in connection with fountain pens.
The Modern Pen Company's use of the 'Waterman' name caused public confusion, leading consumers to believe its pens were products of the original L. E. Waterman Company.

Procedural Posture:

L. E. Waterman Company filed suit against the Modern Pen Company in federal district court, alleging unfair competition and trademark infringement.
The District Court issued a final decree restricting the Modern Pen Company's use of the name, requiring it to use 'Arthur A. Waterman & Co.' and add a disclaimer.
Both L. E. Waterman Company and the Modern Pen Company appealed the decree to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decree.
Both parties appealed the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 court have the authority to require a company using a person's surname in its business to add a full first name and a clear disclaimer to prevent public confusion with an established, well-known competitor with the same surname?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Holmes

Yes. A person does not have an absolute right to use their own name in business if doing so will mislead the public into believing their products are those of an established and well-known competitor. While earlier cases may have suggested a broader right, it is now established that when the use of a name will and does cause confusion, and the profit from that confusion is known and intended, the law requires the later competitor to take reasonable precautions to prevent the mistake. The principle, which is to prevent fraud, applies equally to natural persons and corporations. The lower court's requirement that the defendant use the full name 'Arthur A. Waterman & Co.' and juxtapose the disclaimer 'not connected with the L. E. Waterman Co.' constitutes a sufficient and reasonable precaution to prevent deception while still allowing Arthur A. Waterman to use his name in business.

Dissenting - Justice Pitney

Yes, but the court's remedy does not go far enough. The partnership agreement involving Arthur A. Waterman was not a bona fide business arrangement but was a 'mere sham and a fraudulent device' created so the Modern Pen Company could illegitimately use the Waterman name for the purpose of unfair competition. This is not a case about an individual's right to the bona fide use of their name, but about a corporation acquiring a name to mislead the public. Therefore, the Modern Pen Company should be unqualifiedly enjoined from using the name 'Waterman' in any form.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the principle that the right to use one's own name in commerce is limited by the doctrine of unfair competition. It clarifies that when a personal name has acquired a 'secondary meaning'—becoming strongly associated with a specific company's products—a newcomer with the same name must take affirmative steps to distinguish their products. This decision empowers courts to craft specific injunctive relief, such as requiring full names and disclaimers, to balance the newcomer's right to use their name against the established firm's goodwill and the public's interest in not being deceived. It effectively sets the modern standard for resolving surname trademark disputes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co. (1914)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"