C. Ludwig Baumann & Co. v. Baumann — 155 N.Y.S. 1098

Majority

p. 1098

C. LUDWIG BAUMANN & CO., BROOKLYN, Appellant, v. BAUMANN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

October 15, 1915.)

Headnote

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County. Action by C. Ludwig Baumann & Co., Brooklyn, against Amelia Baumann and others. From an order denying a motion to punish for contempt, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 165 App. Div. 919 , 150 N. Y. Supp. 1081 .

Clarence M. Lewis, of New York City (Walter N. Seligsberg, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

Joseph Gans, of New York City, for respondents.

The order appealed from was a practical interpretation of the import and scope of the judgment of injunction. Literally the judgment forbade all use of the name "Banmann" in defendant's retail furniture business. But the learned justice, in denying a motion to amend his judgment, has clearly intimated that reasonable use of the name "Amelia Banmann" or "Robert Baumann" (which full names had not been originaliy before him for decision) did not amount to a punishable contempt. While we are now pointed to certain photographic exhibits which show defendant's signs with the name "Robert" smaller and less prominent than the rest of the trade title, so that the contrast in lettering is suggestive, the conclusion of the learned justice who has had the case in all its steps should control, and settle such a question of the defendant's purpose and spirit to conform to the injunction. On this appeal plaintiff has not made out sufficient grounds to require us as a court of review to reject the determination at Special Term in favor of defendants. The order is therefore affirmed, bnt without costs.