Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Cogito Ergo Teneo; an intellectual property blawg

Intellectual Property Law

: Cogito Ergo Teneo; an intellectual property blawg

Trademark Law: F.A.R. Food 053107

By Sean Fowler

F.A.R. Food v. R. Fresh, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 06 MA 149 (May 30, 2007):

The Rulli Brothers created a grocery food store 80 years ago. The Rulli family sold the Rulli Bros. chain several decades ago. Shortly after selling the chain, the family got into selling deli and produce in local flea markets in the same area. Nowadays, Rulli Bros. spends almost $275k/yr. advertising locally for its grocery store. Everyone in the area seems to call the store "Rulli's," and the name Rulli's is known throughout the Youngstown area as the grocery store chain. In the early 2000s, the Rulli family started expanding their deli and proiduce business into a more formal affair. They came up with signs, shopping bags for a new location, and the marks used were very reminiscent of Rulli Bros. Rulli Bros. took the Rullis to court. The court found for Rulli Bros., and the Rullis appealed citing seven errors.

Pertinent issues of trademark law:
1) Does the Rulli's informal use of the Rulli name in commerce for years during Rulli Bros. operation eliminate Rulli Bros. claim?
2) Does the Rulli name have secondary meaning, even though it is a surname?
3) Does a Youngstown, Ohio, only brand constitute interstate commerce?

Conclusion:
No and yes, and yes. Since the operation of the deli at the flea markets used no signs or stylized bags or any identifying marks for years, the Rullis could not claim constant use. Even though the Rulli name is a surname, Rulli Bros. spent so much on advertising the name and has been such a regular part of the lives of the local populace for 80 years that it indeed had secondary meaning, and the court could prevent the Rullis from using that name in conjunction with the sales of groceries. Last, even though the effect on interstate commerce may be very, very small, the court found that the Lanham Act through the Commerce Clause still had jurisdiction over the claims at hand.

Full post as published by Cogito Ergo Teneo; an intellectual property blawg on November 12, 2007 (boomark / email).