{
  "id": 2550849,
  "name": "Chicago Landlords' Protective Bureau v. Martin C. Koebel, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Landlords' Protective Bureau v. Koebel",
  "decision_date": "1904-01-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,097",
  "first_page": "21",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 Ill. App. 21"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "32 Fed. R. 94",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        6722598,
        6722654
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/32/0094-01",
        "/f/32/0094-02"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 687,
    "char_count": 14331,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3109903318687692
    },
    "sha256": "65f38da997dd6965a2584c7cb384f347fcb1a12c493c55bd1920638a949ce612",
    "simhash": "1:aadab2f84963dcb9",
    "word_count": 2326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:28.128679+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago Landlords\u2019 Protective Bureau v. Martin C. Koebel, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant, a corporation, filed a bill August 28, 1902, against Martin C. Koebel and Frank O. Canape, appellees, praying that the appellees be 'enjoined from representing, pretending and claiming to be associated or connected with appellant in any manner, and from circulating, in any manner, stationery, circulars, pamphlets or advertising matter, upon which shall be printed the title \u201cLandlords\u2019 Protective Department,\u201d or any similar combination of words in which the words \u201cLandlords\u2019 Protective\u201d appear. The court, on the filing of the bill, granted a preliminary injunction. The appellees, September 5, 1902, filed an answer to the bill, to which appellant replied. The cause was heard on evidence produced in open court, and, November 5, 1902, the court dissolved the preliminary injunction and dismissed the bill for want of equity. Appellant\u2019s certificate of complete organization was issued November 10, 1886, and its corporate object is thus stated in its articles of incorporation : \u201c The object of said corporation shall be to collect and compile the names of persons who have proven unsatisfactory and troublesome tenants, and to have been a cause of vexation and expense to their landlords, and for general reference, use and information ass to the status, payment of rent, care of property, and whether a desirable, good, bad or pestiferous tenant, and to publish and maintain a, list of such renters for the information and protection of landlords and its patrons and to aid and assist such landlords to recover possession of their property.\u201d The location of its principal office is stated to be \u201c Chicago, Illinois.\u201d It has conducted the business for which it was incorporated ever since its incorporation. Its offices in Chicago are at 232 W. Division street, 332 Blue Island avenue, 100 Washington street, and 371 Larra bee street, the last being its main office. Its method of doing business is to sell to a person a membership in the corporation for the sum of $10, which membership entitles the purchaser thereof to the services of the corporation in collecting rents, evicting bad tenants, and general care of his interest as a landlord. Appellant also did business for person\u00e9 not mem here, who', on payment to it of $5 each, became entitled to its services in evicting tenants.\nAppellant expended, originally, in establishing its business, about $10,000, and spent yearly in advertising its business from $1,000 to $2,000. Its business is worth between $1,000 and $5,000 yearly, and, at the time of the hearing, it had done business for about 7,000 persons. The appellees are not incorporated. They inaugurated the \u201c Landlords\u2019 Protective Department \u201d February 1,1901. On the back of a printed pamphlet issued by appellees about February 1, 1902, are, in large letters, the words, \u201c Landlords\u2019 Protective Department,\u201d and underneath said words, in small letters, are the words, \u201c Campe Commercial Agency.\u201d On page 5 of the pamphlet is the following:\n\u201c The five objects of the Landlords\u2019 Protective Department :\n1. To give landlords legal advice with reference to all disputes between themselves and their tenants. 2. To eject undesirable tenants for failure to pay rent, or for other reasons. 3. To advise and render legal services with reference to all general taxes, special assessments, tax sales and tax redemptions. \u00cd. To give advice and render legal services with reference to city ordinances and violations. 5. To give advice and render legal services in mechanics\u2019 lien cases and disputes between landlords and tenants.\u201d\nThis and other evidence in the case shows that the business of the appellees includes such business as that of appellant. On page 6 of the pamphlet, and immediately following the matter above quoted, this appears: \u201cWe charge a membership fee'of one ($1) 'dollar, which entitles the member to free legal advice on all matters growing out of the five objects aforementioned.\u201d\nThe following appears on page 7 of the pamphlet: \u201cOn receipt, at our office, of the one dollar membership fee, we send you a membership certificate which runs for one year, beginning one month after receipt by us of the membership fee.\u201d\nA receipt issued by appellees, which was put in evidence, is as follows:\n\u201cChicago, Illinois, June 4, 1902.\n.Received of Mr. Charles Ruge one dollar, entitling him to one year membership in the \u2018Landlords\u2019 Protective Department\u2019 of the Campe Commercial Agency, including all privileges and benefits of said department.\nLandlords\u2019 Protective Department,\nper W. E. Gray.\u201d\nA certificate of membership of Charles G. Ruge was also put in evidence, headed, in large printed capitals, \u201c Campe Commercial Agency.,\u201d next under which words are, in smaller capitals, the words \u201c Landlords\u2019 Protective Department, \u201d and next below the last words, \u201c 422-423-424 Ash-land Block, Chicago.\u201d The certificate is signed in the following printed names : \u201c Campe Commercial Agency, Landlords\u2019 Protective Department,\u201d the former words being in capitals and the latter not. In writing, after the word \u201cDepartment,\u201d is written : \u201c Campe.\u201d Similar certificates were issued to persons applying for membership, on payment of the usual fee.\nAppellees used a business card about four and one-half by two and three-quarter inches in size, on which was the following:\n\u201c Tel. Main 2625.\nLandlords\u2019 Protective Department.\nCampe Commercial Agency.\n422-42^-424 Ashland Block, E. E. Cor. Randolph & Clark Sts.\nW. E. Gray, Special Representative. Chicago.\nO ver.\u201d\nOn the back of the card is the following :\n\u201c How it Protects.\nThe five objects of the department:\n1. Free legal advice with reference to disputes between landlord and tenant.\n2. Ejecting undesirable tenants for failure to pay rent, or other reasons.\n3. Free legal advice with reference to all general taxes, special assessments, tax sales and. tax redemptions.\n4. Free legal advice with reference to city ordinances or violations thereof. s \u25a0\n5. Free legal advice in all mechanics\u2019 lien cases and disputes between owners and contractors.\nMembership Fee $1.00 a year. Fo Assessments.\u201d\nPencil marks are drawn through the name \u00a3i A. E. Cooper\u201d on the face of the card.\nThe words \u201c Landlords\u2019 Protective Department \u201d on the card are in much larger letters than are the words next under them.\nPersons who had done business with appellant testified that its reputation for fair dealing is good. Appellant\u2019s name, connected as it is with a profitable business, established and maintained at large expense, and with a good reputation for fair dealing, is of great value to it, and consequently, any such imitation of its name as is likely to mislead the public, by inducing them to believe that the business of the imitator is appellant\u2019s business, is injurious to appellant.\nExact similitude is not required as a condition of relief. It is enough that the similitude is such as to be calculated to mislead the public. Browne on Trade-Marks, 2nd Ed., see. 33. \u201c Similarity, not identity, is the usual recourse when one party seeks to benefit himself by the good name of another,\u201d and \u201c a similarity which would be likel\\r to deceive or mislead an ordinarjq unsuspecting customer is obnoxious to the law.\u201d Celluloid Manufac\u2019g Co. v. Cellonite Manufac\u2019g Co., 32 Fed. R. 94. The name \u201c Landlords\u2019 Protective Bureau\u201d is appellant\u2019s corporate name. Appellees have adopted the name \u201c Landlords\u2019 Protective Department.\u201d The words \u201c Landlords\u2019Protective \u201d are the most significant and distinguishing words in each name, and a person looking at both names at the same time, might, not unnaturally, suppose that the \u201c Landlords\u2019 Protective Department \u201d was a mere department of the Landlords\u2019 Protective Bureau.\u201d Fames less similar to the name sought to be protected have been held to be imitations calculated to deceive and mislead. Browne on Trade-Marks, sec. 33, citing numerous instances.\nAppellant proved by a number of witnesses, whose testimony is not contradicted, that numerous persons, to whom the appellees had issued certificates of membership in the Landlords\u2019 Protective Department, applied at offices of appellant for aid and assistance, under the impression that the business of the \u201cLandlords\u2019 Protective Department \u201d was appellant\u2019s business, and, in at least one case, it was difficult to persuade the applicant that it was not. It was also testified by several witnesses that W. E. Gray, whose name is on the card above mentioned, and who was appellees\u2019 agent for the purpose of soliciting persons to become members of the \u201cLandlords\u2019 Protective Department,\u201d represented to them, in substance, that the business appellee was doing was appellant\u2019s. Charles Buge, to whom Gray delivered a certificate of membership in appellees\u2019 \u201c Department,\u201d testified : \u201c I asked him, I said, \u2018 Is that in connection with this concern on Division street ? \u2019 He said, \u2018 Yes, sir.\u2019 I says, \u2018 Then I am on the safe side.\u2019 He says, \u2018 That is merely a branch office of ours, and the main office is down town in the Ashland Block.\u2019 I said \u2018All right,\u2019 and 1 paid the dollar and got the receipt.\u201d Two other witnesses testified to the same effect. W. E. Gray and appellee Campe were the only witnesses for ^appellees. Gray received for his services in procuring persons to become members of appellees\u2019 concern, the one dollar fee paid by each member secured by him. Assuming his testimony to be true, it shows him to possess a rather singular memory. While not denying that he had conversations with the persons whose testimony is last above referred to, nor that he issued to them certificates of membership, nor that he conversed with them, he testified that he did not recognize any of them as persons with whom he had spoken, they being present in court. He testified, generally, that he did not remember any of their faces, and did not remember making to any of them the statemetts or representations to which they testified; that he did not deny meeting them and receiving money from them and giving them receipts, if they had receipts in his name, and did not deny handing them cards; that he did not deny these things, because he did not remember especially; but he positively denied that he ever represented to any person that the Landlords\u2019 Protective Department had any connection with appellant, and that he based this denial on the simple statement that he never said so to anybody. Appellee Campe testified that he did not know of the Landlords\u2019 Protective Bureau until five or six months before the hearing, which occurred November 5, 1902, and did not know it was in existence when he established the Landlords\u2019 Protective Department; that he never instructed any of appellees\u2019 agents to represent to persons whom they solicited to become members, that appellees were, in any way, connected with the Landlords\u2019 Protective Bureau; but that, as soon as he began to hear of the similarity of the names, he warned appellees\u2019 agents against representing themselves as the appellant. It thus appears that appellee Campe himself recognized that the similarity of names was likely to mislead. It is not necessary to entitle appellant to relief for it to appear that the intention of appellees, in adopting the name, was fraudulent or wrongful, and the absence of fraudulent intention is no defense.\u201d Browne on Trade-Marks, sec. 386, and cases cited; Hopkins\u2019 Pair Trade, sec. 115. Nor is it any defense that appellees, when they adopted their name, were ignorant of appellant\u2019s existence. 2 High on Injunc., 3d ed., sec. 1087. In this case the names are so similar as to be calculated and likely to mislead, and the proof is that the similarity actually misled. The name which has been imitated by appellees is appellant\u2019s corporate name. In Newby v. The Oregon Central R. Co., Deady, 609, the court say, p. 616: \u201c Under the law the corporate name is a necessary element of the corporation\u2019s existence. Without it, a corporation cannot exist. Any act which produces confusion or uncertainty concerning this name is well calculated to injuriously affect the identity and business of a corporation. And as a matter of fact, in some degree at least, the natural and necessary consequence of the wrongful appropriation of a corporate name, is to injure the business and rights of the corporation by destroying or confusing its identity. The motives of the persons atte\u00b0mpiling the wrongful appropriation are not material. They neither aggravate nor extenuate the injury caused' by such appropriation. The act is an illegal one and must, if necessary, be presumed to have been done with an intent to cause the results which naturally flow from it.\u201d\nThe decree is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Therefore it will be reversed and the cause remanded, with direction to enter a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Adams"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. Holland, for appellant.",
      "Albert B. George, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago Landlords\u2019 Protective Bureau v. Martin C. Koebel, et al.\nGen. No. 11,097.\n1. Corporate name\u2014right to protection of, in equity. A corporate name used in connection with a business enterprise is a thing of value, and its imitation by another corporation engaged in a like business, in such manner as to deceive the public, will be restrained by injunction. Exact similitude is not a condition to relief; it is enough if the likeness is such as to be calculated to deceive the public.\n2. Corporate name\u2014when imitation of, will be enjoined. The use of the name \u201cLandlords\u2019 Protective Department\u201d will be enjoined at the instance of a corporation, prior in right, employing the name \u201c Chicago Landlords\u2019 Protective Bureau.\u201d\n3. Corporate name\u2014what not essential to restrain imitation of. It is not essential to the right to enjoin the use of a corporate name that it appear thar the intention of the defendant in adopting the imitative name was fraudulent or wrongful; and, it is no defense that at the time of the adoption of such name the defendant was ignorant of the plaintiff\u2019s existence.\nBill to enjoin infringement of corporate name. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jesse Holdom. Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1903.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.\nOpinion filed January 25, 1904.\nJohn F. Holland, for appellant.\nAlbert B. George, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0021-01",
  "first_page_order": 39,
  "last_page_order": 46
}