Click here for immediate legal advice
from a lawyer
    Home    Services    Downloads    Qualifications    Tax Forms    Hot Line    Order Now       Contact Us
The Official Website of Spiegel & Utrera, P. A.

Spiegel & Utrera, P.A. is a fully licensed law firm that delivers professional legal services at extremely affordable prices.
"There are only two types of people. Those in business and those who wish they were!" -- Larry Spiegel, Esq.
 

FOR YOUR PROTECTION...

Florida Incorporation Does Not Confer Trade name or Trademark Rights

You own a company properly incorporated or authorized to do business in the State of Florida under the name XYZ Corporation. You sell widgets stamped with the mark XYZ, or you provide services using the XYZ designation in your advertising, letterhead, business cards, and signs. So you think you have nothing to worry about regarding trade name, trademark, or service mark rights. You are wrong.

In fact, the Florida Administrative Code explicitly warns that "'[t]he filing of any corporate entity is only a grant of authority to use such a name and does not include the adjudication of the legality of such use.'" American United Life Ins. v. American United Ins., 731 F. Supp. 480, 488 (S.D.Fla. 1990) (quoting Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r.1N-1.002 (1989)).

Therefore, incorporation by the State of Florida is not a valid defense to trade name, trademark, or service mark infringement, unfair competition, or anti-dilution claims. Id. Neither is permission by the State to engage in business in Florida is also not a valid defense under state or federal law. Id.

In American United, both the plaintiff and defendant were engaged in the business of providing insurance. Id. at 482. Plaintiff, an Indiana corporation, adopted the trade name and service mark "American United Life Insurance Company" in 1936, and was licensed to conduct business in Florida under that name in 1937, and had continuously maintained that license and used its name and trademark until the time of litigation. Id. Furthermore, the plaintiff had registered a service mark with the federal government and State of Florida since 1989.

Defendant, on the other hand, had not registered "American United Insurance Company" as a service mark, either federally or with the State of Florida, Id. at 483. Prior to incorporation and licensing as an insurance company in 1984, defendant made no effort to discover the existence of plaintiff or plaintiff's prior ownership of its confusingly similar trade name and service mark. Id. at 484. The Defendant, however, asserted the defense of "estoppels by virtue of incorporation and licensing." Id. at 487. In other words, it argued that "its incorporation by the State of Florida and its licensing by the Florida Department of Insurance grant[ed] immunity from suit." Id.

Unfortunately for the defendant, the trial court reiterated the well-settled principle that "in granting a corporate charter, the [state] adjudges neither the legality of the business nor of the name chosen. That is a matter for judicial determination by a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. (quoting Children's Bootery v. Sutker, 91 Fla. 60, 107 So. 345 (Fla. 1926). In addition, the court reasoned that the federal law as embodied in the Lanham Act was specifically intended by congress to protect against the use of deceptive and misleading marks and to protect persons engaged in commerce against unfair competition. Id. at 488. The court, therefore, granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction, attorney's fees, and costs. Id. at 489.

On the other hand, the mere fact that a party's corporate name contains a word that is part of another's trade name or mark does not, of itself, make the name "substantially similar," Armstrong Cork Co. v. World Carpets, Inc., 203 U.S.P.Q. 19, 24-25 (5th Cir., 1979), so that it may not infringe another party's rights. The basic issue is likelihood of confusion. In some situations a party's corporate name is not before the public so as to cause confusion with another's mark. In such cases, the junior user may be enjoined from use of the name as a mark, but not from use as a corporate name. See Sunbeam Furniture Corp. v. Sunbeam Corp., 191 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1951); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Liberty Ins. Co., 185 F. Supp. 895 (D. Ark. 1960).

 For an easier to print version of this information
please click on this link

You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this Download

Get Acrobat Reader

Would you rather speak to a lawyer? A Spiegel & Utrera, P.A. associate is ready to take your call.

Spiegel & Utrera, P.A.

Back To Top

Copyright ©MMI, ©MMIV, ©MMV Spiegel & Utrera, P. A.
All Rights Reserved
View this site in Français  Español  Italiano  Deutsch  German  Português
 

Spiegel & Utrera, P.A. and Amerilawyer.com
Privacy Policy

Spiegel & Utrera, P.A. and Amerilawyer.com
Service Terms & Cancellation Policy

 
Client Bulletin Board
Annual Corporate Compliance Checklist
Annual Corp/LLC Worksheets
Annual State Reports
Change of Address
Pay Your Bill Online
Mission Statement

Spiegel & Utrera, P.A.
Headquarters


 
 
General Counsel Club

Join and be entitled to Unlimited Access
Unlimited Legal Assistance
One year subscription to our News Letter:
Entrepreneur's Alert®
plus
FREE Advertising on
 www.amerilawyer.com and much more!
All for less than 40cents per day
 

 
 
Agreements Prepared & Reviewed
Business Purchase or Sale Agreement, Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure, Employment, Independent Contractor and hundreds more!
Also Agreements & Leases Reviewed
 
Click now for your:
FREE Search
 
 
Shelf
Corporations
(Reddi Corps)
A Reddi Corp is a corporation that, for many months or even years, has already been established and is recorded with the Secretary of State. Corporations are available for immediate delivery with a Federal Tax ID #
Select your state:
Florida  California
New York  New Jersey
Illinois  Nevada
Delaware