In the Matter of a Mail Dispute        ) July 6, 1993
 Between:                               )
                                        )
 ROBERT T. GEERS                        )
 and                                    )
 GLENDA F. JANIK                        ) P.S. Docket No. MD-184 


 APPEARANCE FOR MR. GEERS:              None.

 APPEARANCE FOR MS. JANIK:              None.

The Western Area Office of the Postal Service Law Department has forwarded this mail dispute for resolution pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual^1/ (DMM) § 153.72 and 39 C.F.R. Part 965. Neither party filed the submittal required by 39 C.F.R. § 965.5. Although Glenda Janik did not claim the certified mail transmittal to her of the Notice of Docketing and Submittal Due Date and the Rules of Practice governing this proceeding, the documents were sent to her again by First-Class Mail on June 1, 1993, and were not returned.

The mail in dispute is that addressed to Go Video or Go Video, Inc., 724-A Cheyenne Meadows Road, Colorado Springs, CO 80906-4943, and the disputed mail is currently being held by the Postmaster, Colorado Springs. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the referral letter and attachments submitted by the Western Area Chief Field Counsel.

1. Robert Geers operated a video rental business at 724-A Cheyenne Meadows Road, Colorado Springs, Colorado, using the names A. Go Video, Inc., and Go Video, Inc. His business sometimes received mail addressed simply to Go Video. The business closed at the end of October, 1992, and Mr. Geers filed for Chapter 7 (Liquidation) bankruptcy the next month.

2. On November 1, 1992, Glenda Janik registered the trade name of Go Video with the state of Colorado to operate a video rental business at 724-A Cheyenne Meadows Road, and on November 14, 1992, the City of Colorado Springs issued a Tax License for Go Video at that address. Thereafter, Ms. Janik commenced operation of the business using the name Go Video.

3. In February, 1993, Mr. Geers filed a change of address order with the post office, asking that mail addressed to A. Go Video, Inc., and Go Video be forwarded to him. When the manager of Ms. Janik's store noticed in late February that the business was not receiving mail, he contacted the post office and was advised of Mr. Geers' forwarding order.

4. By March 26, 1993, the postmaster was withholding delivery of all mail addressed to Go Video, Inc., or Go Video at 724-A Cheyenne Meadows Road.

1. When two firms that 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 the senders. Advanced Telecommunications, Inc., P. S. Docket No. MD-99 (November 16, 1990); see Vol. I, Opinions of the Solicitor of the Post Office Department, p. 860 (1883).

2. The record contains insufficient information about the operations of the parties' businesses to support application of a general presumption in mail dispute cases that where a firm succeeds to the address of a similarly-named, established firm that had operated from the premises for a substantial period of time, the bulk of the mail would be intended for the firm first and for a long period of time occupying the premises. See Graphic Display Systems, P. S. Docket No. MD-85 (August 31, 1990).

3. Mr. Geers did not use Go Video as the official name of his business (although he did receive some mail so addressed), his business has been terminated voluntarily and Ms. Janik's business has used that name for at least six months. Therefore, those sending mail to Go Video, 724-A Cheyenne Meadows Road likely intend that it be delivered to the business operating there now, Ms. Janik's.

4. Ms. Janik has not registered or used the names A. Go Video or Go Video, Inc., so it is likely that those sending mail so addressed intend that it be delivered to Mr. Geers.

5. Accordingly, all mail addressed to Go Video, 724-A Cheyenne Meadows Road shall be delivered as addressed. All mail addressed to A. Go Video or Go Video, Inc., at the same address shall be delivered as directed by Mr. Geers.

6. This decision resolves the issue of delivery of the disputed mail but does not determine the ownership of the mail. Either party receiving mail pursuant to this decision that belongs to the other will be responsible for assuring that the mail is delivered to the proper party.

7. The attached mail delivery instruction should be issued.

                                        Norman D. Menegat
                                        Administrative Judge

1/ The DMM edition under which this mail dispute was initiated has been replaced by a new and substantially reorganized version which became effective July 1, 1993. The new version, however, made no substantive changes that would affect this mail dispute. 58 Fed. Reg. 34887, June 30, 1993; DMM, Issue 46, July 1, 1993, Unit I020.