HomeMy WebLinkAbout2809 •
for operating a doughnut shop. This 51,5(10 fee was never paid
and no written agreements were entered into by any of the parties.
Mr. and Mrs. Wilson went to North Carolina on a vacation and left
Linda Sink in charge of their business at Fort Pierce Beach. They
were called back because of operating problems at the shop. After
the Wilsons arrived back .from North Carolina, Linda Sink left the
business and refused to pay the G?ilsons the S1,504 fee. '
Defendant Linda T. Sink, her husband, *Iathan Sink, and
Elaine K. Goodrich, obtained a charter from the Secretary of State
for Dough-Dough Donuts, Inc. on September 22, 1978. (P-4). On
August 31 1978 Tir~° T cintr~ her husband, and Hough-nc,t,gh
, , L lVp a • ?•iaaa~
Doughnuts, Inc. entered into a business lease as tenants to lease
space for a shop in Jensen Beach, Florida. (n-2) . T1efenc~ants in-
tended to use the name Dough-Dough Donuts.in their business at
that location. Plaintiff first learned on 0ctober 22, 1978 that
the Defendants had incorporated, using the name Hough-Hough
11~~ t ..s T.,,-..to ~ l otter to T.inrla Cink aclyi atnQ her
L~l1l1 l.A, iT?~.. a ialTi <.laa nave u v
she was not to use the name Pough-Dough Donuts. (P-3). Plaintiff
filed a complaint in this suit on October 27, 1978 and a temporary
injunction was issued against the Defendants by order dated
j November 20, 1978. Defendants changed the corporate name from
I
Dough-Dough Donuts, Inc: to Crispy-n-Donuts, ?nc. on *~ovember 2~,
1978 and as a result of the temporary injunction, nefendants have
~ always operated their business as Crispy-O-Donuts.
Plaintiff's doughnut shop and nef_endants' doughnut shoe
are on the same highway, AIA; on the same island, Hutchinson -
Island; and in the same county, St. Lucie County. '_!'he two shops
are approximately sixteen miles apart, but the two shops have .
some of the same customers. The testimony shows that the dough-
nuts are made from a pre-mixed flour, from the directions which
are printed on the back of .the bag. The ordinary consumer of
doughnuts could not tell the difference between Plaintiff's and
Defendants' doughnuts. There is a reasonable probability of
customer confusion if the Defendants used the same or similar
' name as Plaintiff's doughnut shop. Defendants clearly pirated
and appropriated the name Hough-Hough nonuts from Plaintiff.
-3-
6~i~ 3~LJ PAGE 21 ~