From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lerner v. Sportsmaster Co., Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Feb 26, 1951
4 Misc. 2d 478 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1951)

Opinion

February 26, 1951

A. Friedman for plaintiffs.

Herman L. Falk for defendant.


The court is satisfied that defendant's use of the name "Sportsmaster" in the manufacture or distribution of men's sport apparel is unfairly competitive with plaintiff's prior use of the name "Sportmaster", without the intermediate "s", upon sport shirts manufactured and distributed by plaintiff. Plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to injunctive relief. On the other hand, plaintiff has not shown that he "has been damaged in any quantitative sense" ( Biltmore Pub. Co. v. Grayson Pub. Corp., 272 App. Div. 504, 507); or particularly that "the sales made by defendant would otherwise have gone to plaintiff or that plaintiff's sales have been lessened by defendants' sales". ( Biltmore Pub. Co. v. Grayson Pub. Corp., supra, p. 507.) Consequently, an accounting is not justified.

From a consideration of all the evidence, the court is of the opinion that defendant's conduct was neither intentionally deceptive nor malicious. Defendant's motions to dismiss and for judgment are denied. Plaintiff's motion for judgment is granted in accordance with the views above expressed, but without costs of the action to either party. Settle judgment.


Summaries of

Lerner v. Sportsmaster Co., Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Feb 26, 1951
4 Misc. 2d 478 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1951)
Case details for

Lerner v. Sportsmaster Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HERBERT B. LERNER et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPORTSMASTER CO., INC., Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Feb 26, 1951

Citations

4 Misc. 2d 478 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1951)
103 N.Y.S.2d 990

Citing Cases

Ronson Art Works v. Gibson Lighter Co.

The granting of injunctive relief does not necessarily import a requirement that damages must be awarded or…

Ball v. United Artists Corp.

They hold that the damages generally recoverable for unfair competition are not what the defendant gained but…