November 16, 1990
In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between:
ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
c/o DONALD B. KRAVITZ, PRESIDENT
and
ATI TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
c/o WILLIAM K. RYAN
P. S. Docket No. MD-99
APPEARANCE FOR MR. RYAN:
William Goldstein, Esq.
4 Greenwood Square, Ste. 200
P. O. Box 5018
Bensalem, PA 19020-8544
APPEARANCE FOR MR. KRAVITZ:
Allen H. Vernon, Jr.
8th St. & Asbury Avenue
P. O. Box 385
Ocean City, New Jersey 08226-0385
INITIAL DECISION
This mail dispute proceeding was docketed under Domestic Mail Manual §153.72, which requires Regional Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to this Department for decision. Both disputants filed written submittals under 39 C.F.R. §965.5. The dispute concerns delivery of mail addressed to “ATI” or “ATI Advanced Telecommunications, Inc.” at 9187 New Falls Road, Levittown, PA 19054-1802. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the submittals and exhibits attached thereto:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Disputant ATI Advanced Telecommunications, Inc. (“ATI 1”) is owned by its President, Donald B. Kravitz. The corporation was incorporated in June of 1989. Prior to March of 1990, the corporation operated at two locations: 9187 New Falls Road, Levittown, PA 19054-1802 and at another location in Ocean City, NJ. Mr. Kravitz was physically located at the Ocean City location, and Disputant Kenneth Ryan, an employee of the corporation, operated the Levittown, PA facility.
2. On March 31, 1990, Mr. Kravitz closed the Levittown office of the corporation and moved the equipment to another location in Ocean City. He also negotiated a termination of the lease on the Levittown office space effective April 15, 1990.
3. On April 2, 1990, Disputant Ryan formed a new corporation, ATI Telecommunications, Inc. (“ATI 2”). He also entered into a new lease for the same office space at 9187 New Falls Road, Levittown, PA.
4. In view of the confusingly similar corporate names, ATI 2 now operated under the names InfoNET Telecommunications, Inc., and Worldlink North America.
5. ATI 2 requests that all mail addressed to 9187 New Falls Road be delivered to it. ATI 1 requests that all mail addressed to “ATI” or “ATI Advanced Telecommunications, Inc.” at that address be delivered in accordance with the direction of its president, Donald B. Kravitz.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. When a dispute arises between officers or others associated with a corporation, over delivery of mail, the mail is delivered in accordance with the direction of the president. DMM §153.51.
2. When two firms who have used the same or confusingly similar names and mailing addresses enter conflicting orders at the post office for the delivery of the same mail, delivery will be made to the firm which is the most likely recipient intended by senders. See, e.g., 1 Op. Solic. P.O. Dep’t No. 344 at 860 (1883), where mail was delivered to a firm’s previous owner who had operated for several years under a particular tradename but recently abandoned the name, rather than to another firm that recently adopted the same name. See also, 2 Op. Solic. P.O. Dep’t No. 764 at 548 (1888). Exceptions are made when a party enters into a contract explicitly transferring its right to receive mail addressed to itself, or enters into a contract which transfers the entire business to a new owner. 1 Op. Solic. P.O. Dep’t No. 351 at 868-869 (1883); 3 Op. Solic. P.O. Dep’t No. 1055 at 49 (1893); 9 Op. Solic. P.O. Dep’t No. 189 at 240 (1951). Here, the parties failed to enter into such a contract.
3. It is likely that the bulk of the mail addressed simply to “ATI” at the 9187 New Falls Road address is intended for ATI Advanced Telecommunications, Inc., which began operation under that name at that address in June of 1989. Accordingly, all mail addressed to “ATI” at that location should be delivered in accordance with the instructions of Donald B. Kravitz, president of ATI Advanced Telecommunications, Inc. There is no dispute that mail addressed to “ATI Advanced Telecommunications, Inc.” should also be delivered pursuant to Mr. Kravitz’s instructions. Finally, the parties also agree that mail addressed to “ATI Telecommunications, Inc.” at that address should be delivered to 9187 New Falls Road, Levittown, PA.
4. This decision resolves the issue of delivery of the disputed mail but does not determine the ownership of the mail. In the event that Mr. Kravitz and ATI 1 receive mail pursuant to this decision that belong to ATI 2, they will be responsible for assuring that such mail is forwarded to ATI 2.
5. The attached mail delivery instruction should be issued.
Randolph D. Mason
Administrative Law Judge