Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

The fourth pamphlet exhibit deals primarily with the business of "The Daily Accident Insurance Company," and is aimed to assist the company in the sale of its stock. Business showing the wonderful profit realized from coin-vending machines in use in various parts of the country, it shows the great increase in value of the stock in four different accident insurance companies, whose business is set out in duplicate form. We have carefully read this literature, and are of opinion that, instead of producing or leaving the impression that appellant's business is in some, or any, way connected with that of appellee, just the reverse is true. It shows that this is a brand new venture in the insurance world; in an entirely new and novel way; with a company that is being organized for the express purpose; the machine, as the "silent salesman," is to compete with the shrewd, up-to-date insurance agent in all public places in the country. And while, according to its literature, it will expect to sell its policies in the main to travelers, it will sel to any and all who want to buy. In all of this literature, it is made plain that these policies are to be issued by The Daily Accident Insurance Company. There is nothing in the literature of which appellee may rightfully complain.

So long as appellant does nothing which is calculated to mislead or deceive the public into believing that its business is in some way connected with appellee's business, no ground of complaint is afforded appellee, unless it is entitled to the exclusive use of the words. "Travelers Insurance," and the very fact that they have been selected by appellant company as a part of its name entitles appellee to the relief sought.

There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether or not "travelers insurance" is a distinct class of insurance. Men of experience in the insurance world are divided upon this question. Some of the witnesses qualified to speak say that there is a distinct class of insurance known as travelers insurance; while others hold a contrary view. The history of appellee, as disclosed by the record, shows that, as originally organized, its business was primarily to compete with two other companies engaged in placing insurance upon the lives of travelers. In its early life this was its chief, if not its only line of insurance. It did not, however, long confine itself to this exclusive line of business, but branched out into the

broader field of accident insurance, and for many years past, it has been engaged in doing a general accident insurance business. The fact still remains, however, that although it does accident business of almost every character, there has been brought over into all of its insurance contracts a clause for the special benefit of travelers upon the conveyance of common carriers. Not only are special rates made to travelers, but the policies provide that in case of accident while traveling on a public carrier the indemnity is much greater than for accidents occurring elsewhere. So it would seem that the weight of the argument is in favor of the contention of those witnesses who assert that travelers insurance is a class of insurance by itself. Although most of the companies, and, in fact, all of them, so far as we are advised, write a general line of insurance, they also include in this general insurance a special clause in favor of travelers.

In Joyce on Insurance, sec. 8, in dealing with the origin of accident insurance, we find the following:

"We have already noted under preceding sections cattle insurance, and that form of casualty insurance known as insuring the liberty of persons, but insurance which relates to the loss of life or limb, or other personal injury by accident, is of modern origin. Accident insurance, in its original form, seems to have comprehended railway accidents only, for which purpose a company was established in London in 1849, known as the Railway Passengers' Assurance Company, but in 1856 it extended its plans to embrace accidents of all kinds, and the first American company was said by a writer in 1873 to have been then only ten years old."

Niblack on Benefit Societies and Accident Insurance, sec. 363, in speaking of the English system of accident insurance in comparison with the American, says:

"Some policies cover all classes of accidents, while others are limited to those of a specified nature, as for instance, accidents while traveling by public convey

ance."

A company which made a specialty of insuring travelers against accident had as well be called a travelers insurance company, as a life insurance company which made a specialty of insuring bankers is called the Bankers' Life Association or Insurance Company, or an insurance company which makes a specialty of insuring ships is called a Marine Insurance Company. The fact

that companies which make a specialty of one line of business go beyond that line and accept other risks does not make them any the less carriers or insurers of the risks of which they make a specialty; and if that specialty is the insuring of the traveling public, we see no reason why the term "travelers insurance" may not properly be said to apply to that class of the insurance business. Our statutes recognize that there are various kinds of insurance that may be written or entered into, as insurance upon the health of persons, or against injury, disablement, or death, or injuries resulting from travel, or general accidents, by land or water. water. Insurance against injury resulting from travel, it seems, might properly be deemed travelers insurance, just as insurance against disease might properly be termed a health policy.

Inasmuch as the text-writers, the early history of the appellee company, and our own statutes recognize a line of insurance known as travelers insurance, we hold that the term "travelers insurance" is a generic term, and that no one has a right to the exclusive use of it, or may complain of its use by another, so long as that use is not made to operate to the detriment of its competitor. When appellee adopted the name "Travelers Insurance Company," it must have had the idea that this was a generic term, for its title is "The Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut." If it did not recognize travelers insurance as a distinct branch or class of business in the insurance world, the necessity for the addition of the words "of Hartford, Connecticut" is wanting, for its title, "Travelers Insurance Company," without the use of these words, would have been amply protected if the word "travelers," as used, was not a generic term. While the addition of the words "of Hartford, Connecticut" to the words "Travelers Insurance Company" is not by any means conclusive that the appellee company at that time regarded travelers insurance as a distinct branch of the insurance business, still it lends some color to the claim that it was so regarded.

The conclusion which we have reached is in accord with the opinion of this court in Industrial Mutual Deposit Co. v. Central Mutual Deposit Co., 112 Ky., 937, in which a question in many respects similar to that under consideration was before the court. There both corporations were doing business in the city of Lexington.

They were engaged in the same business. One had been in business but a short time when the other commenced. The older company sought to enjoin the new organization from using the words "mutual deposit" as a part of its name. It was charged in the petition that the defendant company was organized for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of customers, clientage and business. The application for an injunction was denied, and upon review this court, in affirming the decision of the lower court, said:

"The words which are identical in the names in controversy are "Mutual Deposit." But these words designate the business followed by the company and are generic terms descriptive of that business * and as the name is descriptive of the business, neither can appropriate it exclusively."

** *

In that case the opinion in the case of Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mnfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S., 598, was cited with approval. It was there held, that names which are descriptive of a class of goods can not be exclusively appropriated by anyone.

The Supreme Court of New York, in the case of Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation v. Employers' Liability Insurance Co., 61 Hun., 552, in reviewing the case upon appeal from the judgment of the lower court refusing to grant the injunction, said:

"We are of the opinion that the court below was correct in refusing a general injunction against the defendent in this action prohibiting it from the use of the term "Employers' Liability" upon the ground that this term is a descriptive term, used generally to designate a certain well known branch of the insurance business. But it is claimed that wholly irrespective of any question of exclusive property in the name, the plaintiff was entitled to protection against any such appropriation as would interfere with its business, or induce the public to suppose that a new company trading under the same name was the original plaintiff corporation; that it was not necessary that fraud or evil practice should be shown if the fact is made to appear that the use of a trade-mark or corporate name lawfully possessed or enjoyed by a trading company is so used by a competitor as to de eive or mislead dealers to the prejudice of the corporation lawfully using the name, equity will protect by injunction. And our attention is called to certain

« PreviousContinue »