Tecla Corp. v. Salon Tecla, Ltd. — 249 N.Y. 157

Majority

p. 157

The Tecla Corporation et al., Appellants, v. Salon Tecla, Ltd., Respondent.

(Argued June 21, 1928;

decided July 19, 1928.)

p. 158

Milton R. Weinberger, William Klein, Albert T. Scharps and Jerome Weinstein for appellants.

The decree of the trial court restraining the use of the business name “ Tecla ” in the peculiar and characteristic form associated with plaintiffs’ business, upon the ground of unfair competition, was clearly correct and it was error for the Appellate Division to reverse such decree. (White Studios v. Dreyfoos, 220 N. Y. 46 ; Eastern Constr. Co., Inc., v. Eastern Engineering Corp., 246 N. Y. 459 ; Wall v. Rolls-Royce, 4 Fed. Rep. [2d] 333; Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co., 247 Fed. Rep. 407 ; Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson Co., 300 Fed. Rep. 509 .)

Neil P. Cullom, James E. Freehill and Henry W. Steingarten for respondent.

Plaintiff failed to prove any unfair competition. (Salisbury v. Howe, 87 N. Y. 128 ; United Press v. New York Press, 35 App. Div. 444 ; 164 N. Y. 406 ; Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, 198 U. S. 118 ; Singer v. June, 163 U. S. 169 ; Meneely v. Meneely, 62 N. Y. 427 ; Russia Cement Co. v. Le Page, 147 Mass. 206 ; Elize Costume Co. v. Mme. Elize, Inc., 206 App. Div. 503 ; Beatty v. Guggenheim, 223 N. Y. 294 ; Waddell v. Cabana, 220 N. Y. 18 ; Russian Reinsurance Co. v. Stoddard, 240 N. Y. 149 ; Wappler v. Woodbury, 246 N. Y. 152 ; Buffalo Typewriter Exchange, Inc., v. McGarl 240 N. Y. 113 ; Astor v. West 82nd St., 167 App. Div. 273 ; Romeike v. Romeike, 179 App. Div. 172 ; 227 N. Y. 561 ; Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co., 197 N. Y. 173 .)

The use by the defendant of the peculiar and characteristic script which the plaintiff had long employed for the display of its name is calculated to emphasize unduly the similarity of names and forcibly to suggest to the public identity of origin or management. The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified to the extent that defendant is enjoined from, writing or printing the word “ Tecla ” upon any signs,

p. 159

cards, stationery or advertising matter in the peculiar and characteristic script used by the plaintiff, and as modified affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff in the ■ Appellate Division and in this court.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ., concur; Crane, J., not sitting. Judgment accordingly.

Cases cited

Eastern Construction Co. v. Eastern Engineering Corp. 246 N. Y. 459 N.Y. 1927-11-22 p. 158
Salisbury v. Howe 87 N. Y. 128 N.Y. 1881-11-29 p. 158
United Press v. New York Press Co. 164 N. Y. 406 N.Y. 1900-11-16 p. 158
Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict 198 U. S. 118 SCOTUS 1905-04-24 p. 158
Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co. 163 U. S. 169 SCOTUS 1896-05-18 p. 158
Meneely v. Meneely 62 N. Y. 427 N.Y. 1875-09-21 p. 158
Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co. 223 N. Y. 294 N.Y. 1918-04-23 p. 158
Waddle v. Cabana 220 N. Y. 18 N.Y. 1917-01-09 p. 158
Russian Reinsurance Co. v. Stoddard 240 N. Y. 149 N.Y. 1925-04-07 p. 158
Wappler v. Woodbury Co. 246 N. Y. 152 N.Y. 1927-07-20 p. 158
Buffalo Typewriter Exchange, Inc. v. McGarl 240 N. Y. 113 N.Y. 1925-03-31 p. 158
Henry Romeike, Inc. v. Albert Romeike & Co. 227 N. Y. 561 N.Y. 1919-07-15 p. 158
Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co. 197 N. Y. 173 N.Y. 1910-01-04 p. 158