## Facts

- Eugene W. Zimmerman owned and operated two motels near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, known as “Holiday West” and “Holiday East,” and had invested substantial sums in developing and advertising them.
- Zimmerman used “Holiday” as the key word in both motel names and placed roadside signage on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and nearby highways.
- B. & C. Motel Corporation opened a motel called “Holiday Inn” near the Lehigh Valley Interchange in the Allentown area under a licensing arrangement with a national motel chain.
- The defendant’s motel was approximately 75–90 miles from Zimmerman’s motels.
- Zimmerman alleged the defendant’s use of “Holiday Inn” caused confusion and constituted unfair competition; he offered limited evidence of confusion (including a misdirected utility bill).
- Zimmerman filed an equity action seeking to enjoin the defendant from using “Holiday Inn.”

## Issues

1. Whether a motel operator can obtain injunctive relief for unfair competition based on another motel’s use of the common word “Holiday” in its name.
2. Whether the parties’ geographic separation and differing local customer bases defeated a showing of competition in the same market and likely confusion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s nonsuit and dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held Zimmerman was not entitled to an injunction preventing the defendant from using “Holiday Inn.”
- The court concluded “Holiday” is a common/descriptive term not subject to exclusive appropriation on this record.
- The court found insufficient proof of actionable confusion or competition in the same market given the motels’ locations and the limited evidence offered.

## Legal Principles

- Descriptive, geographic, generic, and commonly used words are generally not capable of exclusive appropriation.
- Unfair competition relief requires a legally protectable interest in the designation and proof of actual or likely confusion in a competitive market context.
- Similar business names may coexist when locality supplies the practical distinction and the parties are not shown to compete in the same market area.
- Minimal, isolated instances of confusion are insufficient to justify an injunction that would effectively grant exclusive control over common language absent strong proof of secondary meaning and confusion.

## Conclusion

The court declined to enjoin the use of “Holiday Inn” because “Holiday” was a weak, commonly used term and Zimmerman failed to show meaningful market competition or a substantial likelihood of confusion between motels operating in different localities.


Zimmerman v. B. & C. Motel Corp., 401 Pa. 278, 163 A.2d 884 (Pa. 1960)