Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(DOWNLOAD) "Hill's Supermarkets v. Stony Brook Dairies" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Hill's Supermarkets v. Stony Brook Dairies

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Hill's Supermarkets v. Stony Brook Dairies
  • Author : Supreme Court of New York
  • Release Date : January 30, 1958
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 65 KB

Description

[7 A.D.2d 756 Page 756] In an action for an injunction and an accounting, and to recover damages, the appeal is from a judgment entered after trial
dismissing the complaint. Appellant sought to enjoin respondent from using the words "Stony Brook" for business purposes.
The facts are not controverted. Appellant operates a chain of supermarkets in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. For about
18 years appellant had been advertising and selling its butter, eggs and milk under the trade name or trade-mark of "Stony
Brook" to the consuming public. In 1953 respondent, a wholesaler in the business of selling milk and cream, changed its corporate
name to "Stony Brook Dairies, Inc." and began to sell its containers of fluid milk under the identical name "Stony Brook"
to retail stores and restaurants (not to the consuming public) in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. The sale of milk constitutes
99 of respondent's business. Between 1953 and 1957 respondent's milk sales under the brand "Stony Brook" increased from 20,000
to 40,000 containers a week. At the trial the demand for damages and an accounting was withdrawn, and the only issue left
was whether appellant was entitled to injunctive relief. There was no proof of misrepresentation, deception, confusion or
loss of business. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of appellant for the injunctive
relief demanded in the complaint, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. In our opinion actual proof of deception,
misrepresentation, confusion or loss of business is unnecessary. The likelihood thereof is sufficient. (Taendsticksfabriks
Akticbolagat Vulcan v. Myers, 139 N. Y. 364; Albany Packing Co. v. Crispo, 227 App. Div. 591; New York World's Fair 1939 v.
World's Fair News, 256 App. Div. 373; Famous Sea Food House v. Skouras, 272 App. Div. 258; Kientsler v. Zerr, 279 App. Div.
877; Diesel Oil & Burner Corp. of N. Y. v. New York Diesel Heating Corp., 277 App. Div. 881; 3 Callmann on Unfair Competition
and Trade-Marks [ 2d ed 1, p. 1372; 1 Nims on Unfair Competition [7 A.D.2d 756 Page 757]


PDF Books "Hill's Supermarkets v. Stony Brook Dairies" Online ePub Kindle