Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Sahati
1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3355, 76 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 374, 166 F.2d 348 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A senior user of a fanciful trade name that has acquired a national reputation through extensive advertising is entitled to protection from unfair competition, even from a junior user's non-competing business in a distant geographic market, if the junior user's conduct is likely to cause confusion of source or dilute the senior user's goodwill.
Facts:
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. operated a famous, expensive, and nationally-known nightclub in New York City called 'The Stork Club' since 1934.
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. spent over $700,000 on nationwide advertising, including in radio, magazines, and a major motion picture, making its trade name and insigne widely recognized across the United States.
- The reputation of 'The Stork Club' was well-established and known to patrons in the San Francisco area.
- In 1945, Nicholas M. Sahati and his partners (the appellees) began operating a small bar and cocktail lounge in San Francisco, also under the name 'Stork Club'.
- One of the appellees, Nicholas M. Sahati, admitted he was aware of the New York 'The Stork Club' when he and his partners took over the San Francisco establishment.
- The San Francisco bar was a small establishment with a few stools and tables, not of the same high-end character as the New York nightclub.
- For a time, the San Francisco establishment used napkins that depicted a stork wearing a high hat, an insigne similar to that used by the New York club.
Procedural Posture:
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. (plaintiff) filed a complaint in the United States District Court (trial court) against Nicholas M. Sahati and his partners (defendants).
- The complaint sought to enjoin the defendants from using the trade name 'The Stork Club' and its insigne, and also prayed for damages.
- The plaintiff subsequently waived the prayer for damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment denying injunctive relief in favor of the defendants.
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 use of a famous, fanciful trade name by a junior user for a lower-quality establishment in a different geographic market constitute unfair competition, even if the businesses are not in direct competition?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrecht, Circuit Judge
Yes, the junior user's adoption of the famous, fanciful trade name constitutes unfair competition. A trade name is a property right, and the law of unfair competition is broader than trademark law, designed to protect the goodwill a business has built. Direct or market competition is not an essential element of unfair competition; the controlling factor is 'confusion of source,' which occurs when a junior user's imitation of a name misleads the public into believing there is an association with the senior user, thereby trading on the senior user's reputation. This dilutes the value of the senior user's mark by subjecting their reputation to the hazards of another's business. Given that 'The Stork Club' is a fanciful name made famous by extensive advertising, its adoption by the appellees, even in a distant market and for a different class of establishment, is likely to cause such confusion and must be enjoined.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that significantly expanded the geographic scope of trade name protection, moving beyond the traditional requirement of direct market competition. It solidifies the 'confusion of source' and 'dilution' doctrines as central to unfair competition analysis, especially for nationally recognized brands. The ruling established that in an age of mass media and national advertising, a famous mark's goodwill can be harmed by a dissimilar business in a remote location. This precedent protects senior users from junior users attempting to 'reap where they have not sown' by capitalizing on a well-established reputation, a principle that has become foundational in modern intellectual property law.
