Majority
p. 1005William Foster, Trustee, App’lt, v. The Webster Piano Company, Resp’t. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department, Filed, February 11, 1891.)
Headnote
Trade mark—Injunction.Mere similarity of names is not sufficient to authorize a preliminary in
p. 1006The following is the opinion at special term: Ingraham, J.—The plaintiff shows no right to the use of the word “ Webster,” and it is clear that there was no intention to sell the defendant’s pianos as the pianos manufactured by the plaintiff. It is not shown that the use of the words “ Webster pianos ” has deceived any one, and I do not think it is likely to deceive any ojie. Motion for an injunction denied.
junction, where plaintiff shows no right to the use of the word used by-defendant and there is nothing to show that defendant intends to sell its goods as those of plaintiff or that the use of such words has deceived any one.
Appeal from order denying motion for an injunction pendente lite.
Action to restrain an infringement of plaintiff’s trade mark, "brought by plaintiff as substituted trustee under the will of Albert "Weber, deceased, who claims that the use of the word Webster ■on defendant’s pianos is likely to cause confusion in the minds of purchasers of pianos; that they will think they are buying a Weber piano when a Webster piano is foisted upon them.'
Sutherland Tenney, for app’lt; Alexander S. Bacon, for resp’t.
We think the order appealed from should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion .of the court below.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Yan Brunt, P. J., Daniels and O’Brien, JJ., concur.