From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hang Ten International v. Sherry Manufacturing Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 31, 1974
498 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1974)

Opinion

No. 74-1476. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

July 31, 1974.

John Cyril Malloy, Miami, Fla., Andrew J. Belansky, Richard D. Seibel, Pasadena, Cal., Richard W. Bussoff, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

M. A. Baskin, Miami, Fla., Leon Epstein, Miami Beach, Fla., James L. Guilmartin, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before COLEMAN, DYER and RONEY, Circuit Judges.



In March, 1971, Doris Moore of California, Inc., appellant's predecessor in interest, filed a trademark infringement complaint against Sherry Manufacturing Company, Inc. The issue was settled by consent decree wherein appellee was enjoined from using appellant's trademark, a pair of bare footprints side-by-side, with the right print positioned slightly ahead of the left. The mark is not restricted in size or color, although it primarily appears on the left breast of the appellant's tee shirts, in gold, with the prints about 5/8 of an inch long. The design that appellee agreed to stop manufacturing was a tee shirt with a single set of bare footprints on the left breast with the words Galveston, Texas above and below the prints.

In April, 1973, Hang Ten filed a contempt motion against Sherry, alleging that they were making use of Hang Ten's trademark or simulations thereof. It asked for indemnity, destruction of Sherry's catalogs, injunction against sale of the offending goods, and costs. A hearing was had before Judge Atkins, the same judge who had signed the consent order. He found that the use of the bare footprints by appellee was not the use of a simulation of appellant's trademark, that no likelihood of confusion had been shown. The contempt motion was accordingly denied.

In these circumstances, the rule of Eskay Drugs v. Smith, Kline French Laboratories, 5 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 430, does not apply.

Findings as to likelihood of confusion are factual and not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous, SunMaid Raisin Growers of California v. Sunaid Food Products, Inc., 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F.2d 467; National Association of Blue Shield Plans v. United Bankers Life Insurance Company, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 374.

Consequently, the judgment is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hang Ten International v. Sherry Manufacturing Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 31, 1974
498 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1974)
Case details for

Hang Ten International v. Sherry Manufacturing Co.

Case Details

Full title:HANG TEN INTERNATIONAL (SUBSTITUTED FOR DORIS MOORE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.)…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jul 31, 1974

Citations

498 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1974)
183 U.S.P.Q. 141

Citing Cases

Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. v. A. a Fiberglass

That a purchaser may distinguish the uninstalled parts from actual Rolls-Royce components does not preclude…

Boston Pro. Hockey Ass'n v. Dallas Cap E

This court has held that the findings of a district court as to likelihood of confusion are factual and not…