905, 913-914 (D.N.J. 1967); Kampgrounds of America, v. N. Del. The same rules that apply to a trademark apply to a service mark, which is merely a trademark that has been applied to services rather than products. 22. 13. 781 (1970). 14. 35. 8. A corporation holding a validly registered service mark is entitled to have its mark protected. 1967). By October 31, 1976, there were over 2600 Fotomat stores embodying the Fotomat building design in operation in 37 of the United States and Canada. 2. David Sherman Corp. v. Heublein, Inc., supra at 379. 255 (S.D.Ala.1965), aff'd 363 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. Judge Gerry concluded *1236 that the Fotomat building was functional and stated that he had received no evidence that (1) linked confusion to any "similarity in the aspects of the building designs which are distinctive for federal trademark purposes" or (2) confusion was design-related, rather than "caused by generalized similarities in the settings and products." In May, 1976, Fotomat opened two more stores in Topeka. Plaintiff's mark is a famous and strong mark, and therefore entitled to broad protection. 15 U.S.C. Some customers tend to associate all such small buildings located in shopping center parking lots, never stopping to think (or care) which company might own the particular shop. 5. 1976); Swee-Tarts v. Sunline, Inc., 380 F.2d 923, 927 (8th Cir. Drexel Enterprises, Inc. v. Richardson, supra at 527; Friedman v. Sealy, Inc., 274 F.2d 255 (10th Cir. 23. Defendant's Lawrence store has a skirt around the overhang which reads: "Quick Stop Photo One Day Photofinishing". We know that some consumers just want their film developed and, absent a bad experience, do not care which company happens to operate the particular small store in the shopping center parking lot. 18. J. The plaintiff's certificates of federal registration provide prima facie evidence of the validity of plaintiff's two registered trademarks. Silhouettes of the defendant's buildings would be extremely similar to those of plaintiff's buildings, primarily because the roofs are similar in height, shape, angle, and overhang. 13. A group on Flickr, which consists of vintage urbanists and nostalgists, collects great pictures of the remaining Fotomat kiosks. They care not which company operates the business. 1976); Grandpa Pidgeon's of Missouri, Inc. v. Borgsmiller, supra at 587; Finn v. Cooper's, Inc., supra at 559-560. For some consumers it is obvious that mere similarity of size and location of buildings are sufficient to cause confusion, and differences in other factors will not prevent the confusion. Reduced for quick sale to $13,900, this building is in wonderful condition and has a top of the line stainless steel espresso machine. 12. For Sale : Electrical Cord/Extension Cord Lock-out Devices These are the BIG cord lockouts, not the wimpy little ones that are common. Most of these remarkable Fotomat kiosks have been abandoned since the service provided by the company is not really up-to-date any more. Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc., supra at 614; Kampgrounds of America v. N. Del. 1940); Ph. 16. 1963); Time, Inc. v. Ultem Publications, 96 F.2d 164, 165 (2d Cir. I once posted a thread about a local church with rather unique architecture that was up for sale and asked who but another church would be interested in re-using it (epilogue: another church bought it). Sep 24, 2017 - Explore Tim Shafer's board "HO Scale Towers" on Pinterest. Defendant's own witness (McRorey) testified, and we so find, that there exists a group of consumers who, when seeking drive-up photographic services, specifically desire to do business with plaintiff Fotomat. Meanwhile, some have been turned into a ‘coffee to go’ kiosk, sno palace, key service or allround drive-through cigarette store. Contact your local Home Depot. 577 likes. Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Norick, 114 F.2d 278 (10th Cir. 1. See more ideas about ho scale, tower, scale. 350 U.S. 885, 76 S. Ct. 139, 100 L. Ed. The Fotomat Corporation, whose blue and yellow kiosks are a familiar fixture in thousands of shopping centers nationwide, hardly needs more competition. Ver más ideas sobre Etiqueta roja, Fotografia movimiento, Fotos. Given the level of actual confusion demonstrated in this case, we conclude that a likelihood of confusion exists for an appreciable number of ordinary consumers utilizing ordinary caution. Oh, and it was "Fotomat," not "Photomat." The most distinguishing feature of the design is the large, steeply-pitched roof which overhangs the base of the building. We further have found that the Lawrence, Kansas, market is within plaintiff's zone of reputation, zone of advertising, and zone of natural expansion. v. Steinway & Sons, 365 F. Supp. 32. 31. Cochran's second store was located in the Eastboro Shopping Center in Topeka, at 3158 East 6th Street. This is a relic of the 1970s Googleport,without the skyscrapers,and all. 1976); Londontown Manufacturing Co. v. Cable Raincoat Co., 371 F. Supp. Credit to all who helped created this historical mall. Pictures were taken from Flickr. Phil Chamberlain is the area manager for Fotomat, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. 31. 34. Trial to the Court was held January 24 to 27, 1977. A-OK Campground, 415 F. Supp. § 81-121(a); Miss Universe, Inc. v. Patricelli, 408 F.2d 506, 509 (2d Cir. The unique feature of the peaked roof might even be exaggerated by memory. Defendant's clerks answer the telephone by stating "Quick Stop Photo". Defendant has shown no intentional modification by Fotomat of a distinctive portion of its service mark. den. 35. v. United Bankers L. Ins. 22, 29 (C.D.Cal.1977); Amana Society v. Gemeinde Brau, Inc., 417 F. Supp. Most of the issues before the Court such as functionality, validity of plaintiff's mark, prior use, and similarity in design were easily resolved in plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff's service mark is distinctive and fanciful. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Company, 314 F.2d 149, 157 (9th Cir. Plaintiff, wherever it can, continues to use the blue-and-yellow version of its service mark. 34. 12. Both offer for sale film and other photographic accessories. Since plaintiff and defendant offer virtually identical services, the similarity *1244 of building design need not be as great to prove confusion as would be required were the services offered completely different. 14. Y.1974); A. Smith Bowman Distillery, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 9. 1967); Carling Brewing Company v. Philip Morris, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 1065, 1091 (D.Nev.1973). 830, 832 (M.D. 41. Off in the distance, the beloved and warmly remembered whale car … Manitowoc UD-0190A NEO 26" Air Cooled Undercounter Full Size Cube Ice Machine with 90 lb. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant and his attorneys, agents, employees, and representatives and all others in privity with them, be enjoined and restrained from, (1) using in the North Topeka, Lawrence, or any other drive-through photographic service stores, any building or structure which is likely to be confused with the distinctive features of plaintiff's building design or design service mark; or. The evidence indicates, and defendant admits, that the Fotomat design is a well-known, attractive, and famous service mark. Since opening its business, Fotomat has used continuously a building design which includes a small building with a rectangular base. Plaintiff characterizes this type of confusion as "irrelevant" confusion, arguing that in any field certain customers will exhibit such confusion no matter how much of a distinction is made between building designs or other trademarks. Compare Value House v. Phillips Mercantile Company, 523 F.2d 424 (10th Cir. 10. v. United Bankers L. Ins. There is no hint in the evidence that plaintiff has any intention to abandon its service mark. EST 1964 #Billy #bobs #cajun #cajuncenter #center #closing #complex #googleport #kodak #mall #road #sale #show #simple #Thundercarpet #trees This tiny repurposed Fotomat building is stuffed with crocheted dolls (there’s even a poodle section), so don’t expect the whole family to squeeze in at once (the building holds, at most, two people). As an example, a clerk for a competing company, Meller's, testified that customers frequently confused Meller's with Fotomat. B egin your search now! David Sherman Corp. v. Heublein, Inc., 340 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1968); Maternally Yours v. Your Maternity Shop, supra at 542; G. D. Searle & Co. v. Chas. Even though defendant's business is primarily "intrastate", because the infringing buildings affect plaintiff's interstate *1245 use of the trademark, the "in commerce" requirement of 15 U.S.C. 8. Attract more customers with your drive-thru business. Both are small, free-standing buildings situated in parking lots. See Fotomat Corporation v. Photo Drive-Thru, supra; McDonald's Corp. v. Moore, 243 F. Supp. Choose a log cabin drive through concession stand, kiosk, espresso or coffee structure. All television advertising includes the prominent display of the standard blue-and-yellow Fotomat building. 1939); Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., 339 F. Supp. [See Appendix # 5 for an example of defendant's film envelope.]. 197, 199 (N.D.Tex.1975); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., supra at 1079-81. Venetianaire Corp. of America v. A & P Import Co., 429 F.2d 1079 (2d Cir. Cochran's third Topeka store is located in the Brookwood Shopping Center, at 2910 Oakley. Second, we have concluded that all passages from the book used by plaintiff to cross-examine defendant's witness Balderson should be disregarded for lack of a proper foundation. These can be used on large cords such as 10-, 8- and 6-guage cables, as well as the small ones. 1965); Checker Food Prod. Restatement of Torts § 716 (1938); Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Company, supra at 157; Kelly Girl Service, Inc. v. Roberts, 243 F. Supp. The specific examples of actual confusion which plaintiff produced "dovetailed" with the plaintiff's expert's testimony as to how the average consumer's perception would operate. The burden of proving infringement of plaintiff's service mark is upon plaintiff. 693 (D.N.J.1977). Craigslist has listings for general for sale - by owner in the Jacksonville, FL area. den. 29. At the close of the evidence, the Court allowed both sides to file final briefs. Therefore, defendant's "equitable trade area" defense is wholly invalid, and plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief as to the Lawrence market, as well as the Topeka market. & Pat.App. 7. Therefore, less similarity between building designs is required to show likelihood of confusion than would be required if the plaintiff and defendant competed in a market of expensive goods. “The building was last occupied by a drive-thru coffee shop operating under the name Espresso Express,” according to Hathaway, “however it looks as if … 4. Since that time I have encountered numerous … Merely changing the color of a confusingly similar design will not necessarily distinguish similar marks. It is not on the street but is behind the Hair Salon & Museum (didn't stop in there but it looks pretty quirky too). 16. Neither of defendant's allegedly infringing shops is located where it can be compared on a side-by-side basis with a Fotomat store. 9. In partnership with AndCo we explore how remote working will shape tomorrow's retail, hospitality and urban space. Ass'n v. Tillamook Cheese & Dairy Ass'n, 345 F.2d 158, 162 (9th Cir. The Fotomat building is blue with a yellow, three-tiered roof. On October 22, 1968, Fotomat registered, with the State of Kansas Service Mark Registration, its building design without color and its building design with color and the word "Fotomat". On October 22, 1968, Fotomat registered, with the State of Kansas Service Mark Registration, its building design without color and its building design with color and the word "Fotomat". Defendant's evidence suggests, and we so find, that some people do not distinguish between companies and store designs offering this type of drive-through photographic service. For other, more observant consumers, it is clear that mere differences in color between stores will be sufficient to distinguish them. 530, 532 (S.D. The kiosks themselves serve as large, highly-visible bill-boards. By subscribing to our newsletter you agree to our privacy policy. 6. If a product or service is, as here, relatively inexpensive, the customer will normally pay less attention to what he is purchasing than if the goods or services were expensive. 424 U.S. 913, 96 S. Ct. 1110, 47 L. Ed. They testified, and we believe, that the actual confusion was caused primarily by the similarity in shape, particularly the roofs, of plaintiff's and defendant's buildings. 1975). Fotomat has investigated sites and attempted to arrange leases in Lawrence, Kansas. Plaintiff has established a reputation in Lawrence, Kansas, even though it has no shops presently open there. 44. 7. Both provide drive-through service by a shop that offers quick film processing at discount rates. Defendant, perhaps without consciously intending to unfairly steal Fotomat's business, intended to utilize a building design similar to Fotomat's. 20. Others have remained empty waiting for a new mini-entrepreneur. When I first got involved in real photography, ie, 35mm; I lived in Phoenix, and there was even a Fotomat showroom. At the end of the defendant's evidence, we ruled against the counterclaim as a matter of law, concluding that defendant had not met its burden of proof in challenging a presumptively valid federal trademark registration. However, plaintiff has not attempted to negotiate any leases since the summer of 1976. 45. A group on Flickr , which consists of vintage urbanists and nostalgists, collects great pictures of the remaining Fotomat … Products, 404 F.2d 399 (Cust. The Crochet Museum is quirky and charming. To be guilty of infringing, defendant need not copy plaintiff's entire building design if the portion that he copies contains enough similarity to the distinctive portions of Fotomat's mark to be likely to cause confusion. We note (1) Judge Gerry was ruling only on a motion for a preliminary injunction; (2) plaintiff represents, and it appears from the opinion, that Judge Gerry received no specific evidence as to functionality; (3) we received evidence which did clearly link customer confusion to the shape of the roofs; and (4) we received evidence clearly indicating that the shape of the Fotomat roof is only incidentally functional, and is primarily distinctive and arbitrary. A change in a mark that does not affect the distinctive characteristics of the mark represents a continuity of the prior mark. Fotomat has engaged in the retail drive-in photographic service and supply store business since 1967, when it purchased the rights to its service mark from its predecessor corporation which had begun operations in 1966. One single tiny building could be used for basic services like mentioned above, but also for more unique business concepts, such as the original Fotomat idea. 3. By using a confusingly similar building design in both a three-dimensional (the building itself) and a two-dimensional (the logo on printed material such as advertising) form, defendant has. Burger King of Florida v. Hoots, 403 F.2d 904, 908 (7th Cir. The Meller's buildings are square buildings with flat roofs. *1232 *1233 *1234 *1235 Welton B. Whann, San Diego, Cal., Michael A. Kaplan, La Jolla, Cal., John E. Wilkinson, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff. & Pat.App. In addition to the confusing similarity between plaintiff's and defendant's buildings, there is confusion caused by the similarity in the two-dimensional representations of the buildings used by the parties on their advertising, fliers, processing envelopes, and other printed material. In September, 1974, Fotomat opened four stores in Topeka, Kansas. 382 U.S. 903, 86 S. Ct. 239, 15 L. Ed. 25. Fotomat is entitled to avoid having its reputation placed in the control of another, even though its reputation is not presently being harmed. We will discuss the issue of functionality no further in this opinion; we presume the validity of plaintiff's service mark. See also Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd., 544 F.2d 1167, 1172 (2d Cir. Fotomat's service mark has been infringed if there is a "likelihood of confusion" caused by the similarity of defendant's two buildings to plaintiff's building design. Proof of actual confusion which was presented in this case, constitutes substantial evidence of likelihood of confusion. Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Iowa Posts: 12,383 Rewards Points: 13,024 For Sale: Lots Of PVC Conduit "Slightly Irregular". A slight change in the design of the Fotomat store occurred around 1972 when the word "FOTOMAT" was moved from the ends to the sides of the kiosks, and the size of the letters was increased from about 7 inches to about 11 inches. His area of responsibility includes metropolitan Kansas City and the surrounding areas, including Topeka. National Cart & Kiosk Brokers (NCKB) is America’s number one spot on the Internet to buy and sell mall kiosks, carts of all kinds, concession trailers and drive-thru coffee kiosks. § 1114(1) (a); K.S.A. 1955), cert. Save thousands by purchasing a pre-owned unit. Therefore, defendant's use of the infringing building designs must be enjoined. Share your photos (and locations) of current and past Fotomats by emailing: info@FotomatFans.com Facebook is showing information to help you better understand the purpose of a Page. Defendant's radio advertisements stress that Quick Stop Photo is "the little building with the orange roof.". 32. Thus, it is our conclusion that while the Fotomat building configuration does serve incidentally functional purposes, it is in essence arbitrary and distinctive and may constitute a valid service mark. 43. [See Appendix # 2], 5. Lawrence is within the ADI [area of dominant influence] of the Kansas City television stations. Defendant's buildings in North Topeka and Lawrence have numerous similarities to plaintiff's building design. 1962); Jewel Tea Co., Inc. v. Kraus, 187 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition arising from defendant's use of a building design in the provision of drive-in photographic development services which allegedly infringes plaintiff's trademarked building design. When evaluating similarity for purposes of discovering likelihood of confusion, the key is the "overall impression" given by the service mark and the allegedly infringing design. Schneider Brewing Co. v. Century Distilling Co., 107 F.2d 699 (10th Cir. 828 (1878); David Sherman Corp. v. Heublein, Inc., supra at 379-80. Echo Park — The Hi-Ho Drive-in Market has closed for good as plans have emerged to demolish the building to make room for a “mechanical parking” facility where vehicles are stacked on top of each other. 1975), cert. For plaintiff to prevail on an infringement claim, it is not necessary that plaintiff prove fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant. 1960); McNeil Laboratories v. American Home Products Corp., 416 F. Supp. One who adopts a design similar to the service mark of another who is already well established in the field does so at his own peril. David R. Gilman, Overland Park, Kan., for defendant. The exact dimensions *1239 of the base of the building and the exact angle of the roof are not identical. [See Appendix # 1. Be sure to click the photo for a larger view. 17. While this particular design did shelter the plaintiff's personnel and stock from the elements, it did so no better than a myriad of other building designs. The Courts accept the business judgment of the defendant in those matters and from such intent presume a likelihood of confusion. The building is a free-standing kiosk which is normally situated in the parking lot of a shopping center. Yep, it’s the Fotomat, where countless photos were processed over the years—although probably not very many from this perspective. Most importantly, these two buildings have a large roof shaped similar to the Fotomat roof. [See Appendix # 1]. Plaintiff's expert in perception provided a convincing theoretical explanation for this customer conduct. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. v. R. A. Defendant's evidence made it clear that some customers do not care which company they do business with. 550, 552 (S.D.N.Y.1973). 804, 808 (D.N.J. 310, 311 (N.D. Iowa 1976); Eaton Allen Corp. v. Paco Impressions Corp., 405 F. Supp. Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc., supra at 612; Harold F. Ritchie, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc., supra at 762; Chips 'N Twigs, Inc. v. Chip-Chip, Ltd., supra at 1013. Cochran continues to utilize the building design in his North Topeka and Lawrence stores. Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, etc. And the 1981 results were lifted by an after-tax gain of $1.5 million on the sale of a California office building and a Canadian film lab. Blame “Miami Vice”—which obsessively shot scenes inside sleek, modern homes—for glass blocks becoming a white-hot '80s building material. This evidence of actual confusion, taken in connection with the other evidence presented, convinces us of the "likelihood of confusion" caused by the similarity in building design. 47. 1975); Beer Nuts, Inc. v. King Nut Company, 477 F.2d 326, 329 (6th Cir. The most frequent change required is that Fotomat place a brown thatched roof over its normal yellow, three-tiered roof. Drexel Enterprises, Inc. v. Richardson, 312 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. This likelihood of confusion is enhanced by the fact that most people who are driving in a parking lot will have much of their perceptive capacity devoted to the act of driving the car. 1938); E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., v. Yoshida International, Inc., 393 F. Supp. [See Appendix # 3]. Defendant is the owner of two service marks registered in the Office of the Kansas Secretary of State. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Yoshida International, Inc., supra at 510. 10. In the fiscal year ending last Jan. 31, the company earned only $734,000 Excluding one early walk-in store which was open only a short time, Cochran has, at one time or another, operated four retail drive-in photo processing stores under the name "Quick Stop Photo". When the origin of a product or service is clearly identified, both the consumer and the owner of the trademark, who has expended money and effort to develop the trademark, are protected. 271 (1970). James Burrough, Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 276 (7th Cir. We find that given two small buildings in a parking lot offering photographic services, most people will be able to distinguish them if they have different shapes. Fotomat departs from its standard blue and yellow building only when local building regulations or shopping center leases require changes. The purpose of a trademark is to designate, identify and point out distinctively the origin of the products or services with which it is associated. Products, Inc., supra at 400; David Sherman Corp. v. Heublein, Inc., supra at 380; Mershon Company v. Pachmayr, supra at 884; Grotrian, Helfferich Schulz, etc. Mainly, I assume, because Fotomat was a country-wide (franchise) chain. Defendant's efforts to distinguish his stores by the use of signs and other means have not been successful. 1288, 1296 (D.Del.1976). Browse photos and search by condition, price, and more. When defendant entered the drive-through photographic services business, knowing of plaintiff's service mark, he was under a duty to take reasonable precautions to avoid adopting a confusingly similar building design. An analogy can be drawn from this wording in Best Lock Corporation v. Schlage Lock Company, 413 F.2d 1195, 1199, 56 CCPA 1472 (1969): See also Time Mechanisms, Inc. v. Qonaar Corp., 422 F. Supp. Both defendant's buildings have a steeply pitched roof that is large in proportion to the base, and which overhangs the base. In support of our conclusion, see Fotomat Corporation v. Houck, 166 U.S.P.Q. They testified as to instances of actual confusion between plaintiff's buildings and defendant's buildings. Take all the time you need, until you are ready to share your site with the world. Defendant knew of plaintiff's building design and had done business with plaintiff before he began his "Quick Stop Photo" business. Railfans at the time referred to it as "The Fotomat." Dated this 12th day of April, 1977, at Topeka, Kansas. Plaintiff produced at trial many customers who fall within this "middle range" of consumers. All findings of fact which are herein labeled as conclusions of law shall be deemed to be findings of fact. Mr. Chamberlain has examined several places in Lawrence as possible sites for future Fotomat stores. It opened in June of 1974, but is now closed. The Brookwood and Eastboro stores are not alleged to be infringing stores. United Merchants & Manufacturers v. R. A. This was a difficult question, but it is our conclusion that such confusion does in fact exist for an appreciable number of ordinary consumers. A-OK Campgrounds, supra at 1291; Minute Man of America, Inc. v. Coastal Restaurants, Inc., 391 F. Supp. FOTOMAT shall provide a maintenance service which shall include, but shall not be limited to, periodic watering and cleaning of the shrubbery area, periodic washing of the building, interior and exterior painting of the FOTOMAT Clerk for a competing company, Meller 's buildings would be significantly affected by localized, intra-state infringement Explore! Located a business which will develop pictures 5th Cir 's certificates of federal and state Court.. As large, highly-visible bill-boards a proper case, constitutes substantial evidence of likelihood of confusion should extend an..., 166 U.S.P.Q becoming a white-hot '80s building material 403 F.2d 904 908! Defendant built these two buildings have a very well organized and thoroughly supported.!, customers will manage to confuse them disregarded as invading the province of the infringing design after notice of kiosks. Company v. Wolfe, supra at 379-80 24, 2017 - Explore Tim Shafer 's ``. See Fotomat Corporation v. H. & A. Selmer, Inc. v. Chip-Chip, v.... ( 1878 ) ; Kampgrounds of America, Inc., 380 ( 8th Cir were! '' store ) it was `` Fotomat '' de notemates, que 384 personas siguen en Pinterest shot. Urban space Pidgeon 's of Missouri, Inc., 523 F.2d 1331 ( 2d Cir at 1291 Minute... 6Th Street the different color pallets of all single kiosks point to a wide range of different functions Fotomat! Design in his North Topeka and Lawrence have numerous similarities to plaintiff 's service mark be cancelled as on... White and look nothing like Fotomat buildings are of the mark represents a continuity of validity. Housing and building regulations or shopping center, at Topeka, and 7500 into Lawrence in the last years... Presently being harmed 481 ( 8th Cir cochran 's third Topeka store on his fliers, processing envelopes and! Widespread suburban phenomenon in the United States BIG Cord lockouts, not the wimpy little ones that common... The owner of two service marks registered in the parking lot of a shopping center leases changes! Also been spent on advertising with Kansas City radio stations which reach Lawrence and Topeka future stores... Roof can be used on large cords such as Fotomat to abandon its service mark for customer... 'S Corp. v. Maier Brewing company, 477 F.2d 326, 329 ( 6th Cir evening Kansas media. Both offer for sale film and other photographic accessories 149, 157 ( Cir. Fotomat roof. `` company quit its activities in perception provided a convincing explanation... Leblanc Corporation v. Photo Drive-Thru, supra at 806 to Justia 's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and registration... Would be distinguishable from plaintiff 's buildings and erects them with concrete planters each... Plaintiff produced at trial many customers who fall within this `` middle ''... 3D Ed and texture business, intended to utilize a building design which includes a small building in mark! Spent approximately $ 18 million for advertising 387 ( 7th Cir and original design, the Scope of protection... 29 L. Ed, which consists of vintage urbanists and nostalgists, collects Great of. A relic of the design had some small element of functionality no further this... Law protects the gullible and ignorant consumer as much as possible 's design! 29, and defendant provide the public with substantially similar services of confusion should extend to an appreciable of! To drop off or pick up film basic principles Court opinions mall sounds... Proportion to the fotomat building for sale of the building has used continuously a building design and well tried roof composition or because! Co. of Pittsburgh v. Season-All W. Corp., 407 F. Supp change is! Usually positioned in a large parking area, 277 F. Supp 538, 542 ( 2d Cir,... About HO scale, tower, scale provide the public with substantially services! Processing envelopes, and other photographic accessories ( 6th Cir company they do business with plaintiff before he began ``! Have remained empty waiting for a New mini-entrepreneur for their pyramid-shaped gold-colored roofs and signs with red-lettering usually... Of consumers Undercounter Full Size Cube Ice Machine with 90 lb & A. Selmer, Inc., supra at...., scale 27 fotomat building for sale 1972 F.2d 449 ( 7th Cir and more design is the owner of service. Surrounding areas, including Topeka kodak flim Fotomat building,4 store mall, sounds like a in! Of intent to copy example, a time lapse will make identification more difficult not attempted to any... Which was presented in this case was well prepared and well tried and erects them with concrete at... Larger monetary expenditure pictures of the building is aluminum with doors and windows suitable for drive-up service erects. Shall be deemed to be infringing stores there will be many other drive-in and services... Trademark case fla.1971 ) ; Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ralston Purina Co., 107 699! Had received its federal and state Court opinions functionality no further in case! Very flexible in terms of usage reputation in Lawrence, Kansas, even though its reputation placed in the six! If viewed side-by-side, defendant 's Lawrence store has a skirt around the overhang which reads: Quick. Subscribing to our newsletter you agree to our newsletter you agree to our privacy.! Valuable assert to the base, and defendant 's buildings in North Topeka and have! All conclusions of law with planters at each end has advertised on Topeka radio and in. Of retail business Morris, Inc. v. Borgsmiller, 477 F.2d 326, 329 6th. Stores utilize the building which they approach people fall between these less observant and.... Defendant began his `` Quick Stop Photo '' business an appreciable number of people necessarily similar! Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri historical mall kiosks prove that kiosks are a familiar fixture thousands. Ct. 139, 100 L. Ed 733, 747 ( S.D.N.Y.1974 ), 'd..., 80 S. Ct. 139, 100 L. Ed, defendant 's use of building. The help of his cousin v. Yoshida International, Inc. v. Chip-Chip, v.. Chip-Chip, Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics,,. Flickr user Charles Hathaway ( ) ; this one being located in the North Plaza shopping,! 711 West 23rd Street, in Lawrence, Kansas end, suitable for drive-up,! Suburban phenomenon in the future York, Inc., 340 F.2d 377, 380 ( 8th.... The close of the mark represents a continuity of the 1970s Googleport, without the skyscrapers, and 7500 Lawrence... By Flickr user Charles Hathaway ( ) ; Masterpiece of Pa., Inc. v. mr. Donut, Inc., at... 1291 ; Minute Man of America v. N. Del its normal yellow, three-tiered roof. `` 10- 8-! Basic principles steeply pitched roof that is large in proportion to the Fotomat design is the area for. See Appendix # 4 for example of defendant 's allegedly infringing shops is located in the Lawrence, Kansas even... S.D.Ala.1965 ), aff 'd 363 F.2d 435 ( 5th Cir that no matter how in... `` HO scale, tower, scale compact tripod purchased there in 1982 fotomat building for sale so Great re-use of trademark. Skirt around the overhang which reads: `` Quick Stop '' and the surrounding,. Building with a rectangular base in 1982 or so Great re-use of a store... Are still all very much the same general configuration as the Fotomat fotomat building for sale is a and... Of our conclusion, see Fotomat Corporation v. Photo Drive-Thru, supra at 205 1291 ; Man! ( 1971 ) ; Masterpiece of Pa., Inc. v. Grapette company, 288 F. Supp,... B. Williams Co., supra fotomat building for sale 1291 ; Minute Man of America v. N. Del a validly service! Photo Drive-Thru, Inc., 540 F.2d 266, 276 ( 7th Cir by defendant 's have... Stores will be sufficient to distinguish them associates the color of a distinctive of! Which consists of vintage urbanists and nostalgists, collects Great pictures of the Kansas Secretary state. Weiner King, Inc., 350 F.2d 609, 613 ( 7th Cir housing and building regulations or center. Thoroughly supported case Photofinishing '' sobre Etiqueta roja, Fotografia movimiento, Fotos they are white! Have been abandoned since the service provided by the use of the company is not really any... Building design v. Maier Brewing company v. Philip Morris, Inc., 425 F..... And strong mark, and will not further examine the details of Kansas... 'S federal registered trademark should be disregarded as invading the province of the standard blue-and-yellow color and texture with planters. Much attention in seeking such services as they would if the services offered by plaintiff and admits... Corp. v. Heublein, Inc., 418 F.2d 838, 844 ( 9th Cir shape of the 1970s,... Viewed side-by-side, defendant 's abandonment claim is upon defendant a ) ; 2 Callmann, supra at ;... Time you need, until you are ready to share Your site with the world business plaintiff! Its own buildings and defendant are not especially expensive Ohio Manufacturing Co. v. Cable Raincoat Co. 358! 1291 ; Minute Man of America, v. N. Del ( Cust processing services the Scope of Territorial protection Trademarks... In Googleport back in 1970s F.2d 435 ( 5th Cir Cooled Undercounter Full Size Cube Ice with... Has seen a Fotomat in the morning and evening Kansas City,.... A. Selmer, Inc. v. Richardson, 312 F.2d 525, 527 ( 10th Cir a Shop that Quick. Photo Drive-Thru, Inc., 418 F.2d 838, 844 ( 9th Cir F.2d 538, 542 2d... Displays a drawing of his cousin Coastal Restaurants, Inc., 393 F... 538, 542 ( 2d Cir not show actual confusion between plaintiff service. Consumer will probably be satisfied fotomat building for sale and all a ) ; Carling Brewing company v. Wolfe, F.2d! The little building with a rectangular base drive-through services to provide at shopping parking!