From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shigoto International Corp. v. Cuomo

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Oct 19, 1978
101 Misc. 2d 646 (N.Y. Misc. 1978)

Opinion

October 19, 1978

Markewich, Rosenhaus, Markewich Friedman, P.C. (Robert Markewich of counsel), for petitioner.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Gerry F. Feinberg of counsel), for respondent.


In this article 78 proceeding, petitioners Shigoto International Corp., Shigoto Industries, Ltd., and Sekai Manufacturing Co., Inc., seek a judgment directing the respondent Secretary of State to strike the names Shigoto Far East Importers, Ltd., and Sekai Far East Importers, Ltd., from the index of authorized foreign corporations.

The court finds that the Secretary of State has abused his discretion by allowing the challenged names to be placed in the index of foreign corporations authorized to do business in the State of New York.

Section 301 (subd [a], par [2]) of the Business Corporation Law provides that: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the name of a domestic or foreign corporation * * * Shall not be the same as the name of a corporation of any type or kind, as such name appears on the index of names existing domestic and authorized foreign corporations of any type or kind in the department of state, division or corporation, or a name the right to which is reserved, or a name so similar to any such name as to tend to confuse or deceive." (Emphasis supplied.)

The Department of State has wide discretion as to whether a name is so similar as to tend to confuse or deceive. However, if the choice of the name is so wanting in logical premise as to be violative of good sense and reason, the choice will be deemed to be an abuse of discretion (American Auto Accessories Stores v Lomenzo, 69 Misc.2d 972).

The respondent had previously disallowed the names Shigoto Far East Ltd. and Sekai Far East Ltd., but had permitted the indexing upon the addition of the word "Importers" to each name.

It is clear that the challenged names, either with or without "Importers" added thereto, tend to confuse and deceive the public, as would the use of the name "Chrysler Importers, Ltd." as opposed to "Chrysler Corporation" or "Sears Roebuck Importers, Ltd." as opposed to "Sears, Roebuck Co., Inc.".

Furthermore, out of the myriad of names that could have been used, the choice of the names Shigoto Far East (Importers) Ltd. and Sekai Far East (Importers) Ltd., could only have been made with the "intent to deceive". The court has made this determination even though the requirement of such intent is no longer necessary under section 301 (subd [a], par [2]) of the Business Corporation Law.

Although not relevant to the determination made herein, the court notes that petitioners' counsel has conceded, at the oral argument of this motion, that petitioner corporations are not in business at this time.

The petition is granted.


Summaries of

Shigoto International Corp. v. Cuomo

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Oct 19, 1978
101 Misc. 2d 646 (N.Y. Misc. 1978)
Case details for

Shigoto International Corp. v. Cuomo

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SHIGOTO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Oct 19, 1978

Citations

101 Misc. 2d 646 (N.Y. Misc. 1978)
421 N.Y.S.2d 784

Citing Cases

Commscope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Commscope (U.S.A.) Int'l Grp. Co.

More specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant to permanently (1) cease using its…