## Facts

- Triangle Publications, Inc. published *Seventeen*, a monthly magazine aimed at teenage girls, beginning in September 1944.
- Triangle obtained a federal trademark registration for “Seventeen” for magazines on January 9, 1945.
- Defendants, New York partners doing business as Miss Seventeen Foundations Co., began using “Miss Seventeen” as a trade name and mark for girdles in February 1945 and applied to register it on June 28, 1945.
- Triangle sent letters to defendants’ customers alleging infringement and threatening suit.
- Defendants sued to stop Triangle from interfering with their business; Triangle removed that action to federal court and filed its own action alleging infringement and unfair competition; the matters were consolidated.
- The district court found no statutory trademark infringement because magazines and girdles were not goods of the same descriptive properties, but held defendants liable for unfair competition, enjoined the “Seventeen” use on girdles, and allowed an accounting.

## Issues

1. Whether “Seventeen” had acquired secondary meaning identifying Triangle such that use of “Miss Seventeen” on girdles constituted unfair competition despite noncompetitive goods.
2. Whether defendants’ use was likely to cause consumer confusion, including confusion as to sponsorship, endorsement, or connection.
3. Whether injunctive relief and an accounting of profits were appropriate remedies.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the injunction against defendants’ use of “Miss Seventeen” on girdles on the ground of unfair competition.
- The court agreed that statutory trademark infringement was not established on a “same descriptive properties” theory, but held that unfair competition principles could still bar the use.
- The court sustained relief based on the likelihood that consumers in the shared target market (teenage girls) would believe the girdles were sponsored or endorsed by Triangle.
- The court approved an accounting remedy in principle, while modifying limits on monetary recovery.
- Judge Frank dissented, arguing the likelihood-of-confusion finding rested on speculation without adequate evidentiary support.

## Legal Principles

- A designation that has acquired secondary meaning may be protected through unfair competition even outside the plaintiff’s precise product category.
- Unfair competition can be established where use of a similar mark on noncompeting goods is likely to cause confusion as to sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation, particularly when the parties target the same consumer group.
- The absence of statutory infringement does not preclude equitable relief under unfair competition where goodwill is likely to be misappropriated and consumers misled.
- Injunctions are a standard remedy to prevent continued deceptive use; an accounting of profits may be awarded when tied to the wrongful use, subject to equitable limits.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that “Seventeen” had secondary meaning for Triangle among teenage girls and that defendants’ “Miss Seventeen” girdles were likely to be perceived as connected with or endorsed by Triangle, warranting injunctive relief and related monetary remedies under unfair competition despite noncompeting goods.


Triangle Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rohrlich, 167 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1948)