From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glenn Miller Productions, Inc. v. De Rosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 1990
167 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 20, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


In 1989, a European promoter and the defendant, a former leader of plaintiff's ensemble, discussed the possibility of the defendant's leading an ensemble to be known as the "Glenn Miller Memorial Orchestra" on two 1990 tours of France. The plaintiff made its disapproval of any such plans known to the defendant and to the European promoter, on the grounds that plaintiff owns the exclusive United States' right to the name "Glenn Miller Orchestra", and that the two employment contracts between plaintiff and defendant prohibit the latter's use of the name "Glenn Miller" in any capacity whatsoever. It is disputed whether the defendant withdrew from the French tour prior to the commencement of this action, in which the plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction and both liquidated and compensatory damages.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was properly granted. Plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial risk of irreparable injury, and a balance of the equities in its favor (Primo Enters. v. Bachner, 148 A.D.2d 350, 351).

The contract clauses at issue restrict only defendant's use of the name "Glenn Miller" in his musical enterprises. They do not prohibit him from competing with the plaintiff, or from working as a musician or bandleader. For this reason, we do not find the contract clauses to be restrictive covenants. Were we to so characterize them, we would find them reasonable and enforceable (see, Greenwich Mills v. Barrie House Coffee Co., 91 A.D.2d 398, 400-401).

Nor does plaintiff, by contract, attempt to extend its trademark to the "Glenn Miller" name into areas excluded from protection by the Federal trademark laws (cf., Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29, reh denied 379 U.S. 985). The contract clauses are not an improper extension of a domestic trademark in a foreign market, since defendant does not have superior trademark rights in France (see, Luft Co. v. Zande Cosmetic Co., 142 F.2d 536, 540-541, cert. denied 323 U.S. 756), nor is he a French national (see, Majorica, S.A. v. Majorca Intl., 687 F. Supp. 92, 95). Further, the contractual provisions sought to be enforced are legitimately intended to avoid consumer confusion over the name "Glenn Miller" (see, Scholastic, Inc. v. Macmillan, Inc., 650 F. Supp. 866).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Glenn Miller Productions, Inc. v. De Rosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 1990
167 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Glenn Miller Productions, Inc. v. De Rosa

Case Details

Full title:GLENN MILLER PRODUCTIONS, INC., Respondent, v. CLEMENT DE ROSA, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 782

Citing Cases

WMK Prods., Inc v. Cook

BDO Seidman, supra. Strong public policy militates against post-employment restrictions that deprive an…

Sontag v. Cook

-------- By contrast, the First Department case of Glenn Miller Prods., Inc. v DeRosa (167 AD2d 281 [1st Dept…