From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adrian v. Unterman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 25, 1954
118 N.E.2d 477 (N.Y. 1954)

Summary

holding a trademark, the subject of the distribution contract at issue, is "not the subject of property except in connection with an existing business" and "no property existed" in the use of one's name for the marketing of a product

Summary of this case from Donahue v. Multimedia, Inc.

Opinion

Argued January 12, 1954

Decided February 25, 1954

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, ISIDOR WASSERVOGEL, Off. Ref.

Samuel Masia, Archibald Palmer and Henry H. Zolki for appellants.

Joseph M. Proskauer, John B. Doyle, Eugene Eisenmann and Arthur H. Deibert for respondent.



Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: LEWIS, Ch. J., CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD and FROESSEL, JJ. Taking no part: VAN VOORHIS, J.


Summaries of

Adrian v. Unterman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 25, 1954
118 N.E.2d 477 (N.Y. 1954)

holding a trademark, the subject of the distribution contract at issue, is "not the subject of property except in connection with an existing business" and "no property existed" in the use of one's name for the marketing of a product

Summary of this case from Donahue v. Multimedia, Inc.
Case details for

Adrian v. Unterman

Case Details

Full title:GILBERT ADRIAN, Respondent, v. IRVING UNTERMAN et al., Appellants, et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 25, 1954

Citations

118 N.E.2d 477 (N.Y. 1954)
118 N.E.2d 477

Citing Cases

Welch v. Mr. Christmas Inc.

There being no consent at all as to the use in this time period, we hold that it was. As this court stated in…

Welch v. Mr. Christmas

Here, however, the time limitation upon the use of the commercial had expired at the time of use. The right…