From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kraysler v. Kraysler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 22, 1937
251 App. Div. 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

June 22, 1937.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Theodore Berger, for the appellant.

Isidor Enselman of counsel [ Jay A. Gilman with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., UNTERMYER, DORE, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ.


The record establishes that the defendant is using her name in the location selected by her in unfair competition with the plaintiff and in a manner calculated to mislead the public. The neighborhood in which the stores of the plaintiff and defendant are located has an unusual attraction for retail trade in the business in which the parties are engaged. We believe that justice will be served by limiting the injunction to the defendant's use of the name in connection with the retail millinery business on Broadway between Eightieth and One Hundred and Second streets, New York city.

The judgment appealed from should be modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.


Judgment unanimously modified by limiting the injunction to the defendant's use of the name in connection with the retail millinery business on Broadway between Eightieth and One Hundred and Second streets, New York city, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Kraysler v. Kraysler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 22, 1937
251 App. Div. 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Kraysler v. Kraysler

Case Details

Full title:ROSE KRAYSLER, Respondent, v. LILYAN KRAYSLER, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 22, 1937

Citations

251 App. Div. 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
296 N.Y.S. 791

Citing Cases

Findlay, Inc. v. Findlay

If the foregoing test is met then it is no defense that the name which defendant seeks to use is defendant's…