U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1930

Fidelity Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Fidelity Bond & Mortgage Co. of Texas

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 15, 1930 · Walker, Foster, Dawkins

37 F.2d 99; 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2511 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

James Love Hopkins, of St. Louis, Mo., and Robert Allan Ritchie, of Dallas, Tex. (Lewis M. Dabney, Jr., of Dallas, Tex., on tiie brief), for appellant., D. A. Simmons, of Houston, Tex. (Thos. H. Ball, of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc. (11th Cir. 1984)
Chappell v. Goltsman Goltsman v. Chappell (5th Cir. 1952)
Chase Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Chase Manhattan Financial Services Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1987)
Wyoming National Bank of Casper v. Security Bank & Trust Co. (Wyo. 1977)
B. H. Bunn Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Aaa Replacement Parts Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross (5th Cir. 1971)
Seaboard Finance Co. v. Martin (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1962)
El Chico, Inc. v. El Chico Cafe (5th Cir. 1954)
El Chico, Inc. v. El Chico Cafe (District Court, N.D. Texas 1953)
Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Bronze Publications, Inc. (5th Cir. 1949)
Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ætna Auto Finance, Inc. (5th Cir. 1941)
Pan-American Trading Co. v. Hinojosa (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1941)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, a Missouri corporation, filed a bill to enjoin ’ appellee, a Texas corporation, from using the name under which it Was incorporated, on the ground of unfair competition, because of the similarity of the names and of the business in which both corporations are engaged. The District Court, in an opinion appearing in the record, reviewed the facts and the law applicable thereto, and found against appellant’s contentions. There is no need to again state the facts, except briefly, as follows:

It is shown that both companies are engaged in the sale of mortgage bonds issued by other parties, the same as any bank or brokerage house; that appellant has made a few sales of mortgage bonds in Texas by mail; that it advertises in newspapers and magazines having some circulation in Texas; and that its reputation is good. However, (appellant has failed to show that it has been at all injured by any competition of appellee, there is nothing in the record from which it might be reasonably inferred that the bond-buying public will be deceived by the similarity in the names, and there is no element of fraud shown.

It is not unusual for financial institutions of different localities to have similar names, except as to places of domicile, as, for instance, the various national banks designated by number. People buying mortgage bonds are not apt to rely entirely upon the reputation of the broker offering them, as they would in the ease of a manufacturer or dealer offering merchandise. Furthermore, it hardly is possible that both concerns will offer the same issues of bonds at the same time. The possibility of deception of the publie or injury to appellant by the similarity of names is very remote. We agree with the District Court in his conclusions. Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Houston Printing Co. (C. C. A.) 11 F.(2d) 834

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.