Caseflicks

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) • 1972

Galt House, Inc. v. Home Supply Company

483 S.W.2d 107 | 68 A.L.R. 3d 1159 | 1972 Ky. LEXIS 165

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, incorporating under a name gives a business time to begin using it, not an indefinite right to keep others from using it.

Background

Galt House, Inc., incorporated in 1964 but never opened a hotel, acquired assets, or conducted a substantial business. In 1969, Home Supply Company began planning a Louisville hotel under the name “The Galt House,” recalling a historic hotel that had closed in 1920. Home Supply later began construction and registered the name as a service mark.

Galt House, Inc. sued to stop Home Supply from using the name. The trial court denied an injunction, finding that incorporation and the plaintiff’s sporadic inquiries about possible hotel sites had not given it enforceable rights in the name. Galt House, Inc. appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether incorporating under the name “Galt House,” without beginning a business, entitled the plaintiff to enjoin another company’s use of that name for a hotel.

Holding

No. Incorporation alone did not give the plaintiff a continuing right to exclude others from using the name.

Reasoning

Kentucky’s corporate-name protections are applied through principles of unfair competition. Those principles protect a business’s goodwill or reputation from appropriation, but the plaintiff had no customers, operating hotel, or public reputation associated with its name.

Incorporation can reserve a name for a reasonable period while a business gets started; it does not create a perpetual monopoly without use. More than five years after incorporating, the plaintiff had made only sporadic, unsuccessful inquiries about a hotel and showed no reasonable prospect of beginning one.

The historic Galt House supplied no rights to the plaintiff. That hotel had ceased operating in 1920, and its corporation expired in 1961. No name or operating business was transferred to the plaintiff, and no surviving goodwill could attach to its corporate name.

The plaintiff’s challenge to Home Supply’s service-mark registration did not change the result. The question on appeal was whether the plaintiff had a right to prohibit Home Supply’s use, not whether the registration would protect Home Supply against someone else.