Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 N.Y. 212

Devlin v. . Devlin

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 3, 1877

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1877-04-03

This action was brought by plaintiffs, who compose the firm of Devlin and Co., to restrain defendant from using said firm name. Plaintiffs were engaged in the clothing business. Defendant was engaged in the same business without a partner.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-04-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1942

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

6018771880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Church, Ch. J.

¶1 Both the Special and General Terms have decided that the words and letters on the altered sign are so arranged as to deceive the public, and were so intended. The initial letters “ J. S.” being placed over the word Devlin, and flanked by the No. of the store of defendant, it is said violates the injunction not to use the defendant’s Christian and surname, in a manner calculated to deceive, and requiring that they must be conjoined. The facts will *215 justify this inference and in such a case the general rule is fur this court to adopt the conclusions of the court below. The initials are not strictly conjoined to the surname, and it is probable that “ Devlin’s clothing” is still the distinguishing feature of the sign which the defendant was forbidden to use, and that from the situation of the initials between the figures on the top of the sign they would not or might not be understood to have been intended as a part of the name. The defendant may have intended to comply with the injunction, but the courts below think that he has failed to do so, and within the rule adverted to we feel constrained to follow their finding of fact, but as we concur with the learned judge, who delivered the opinion at General Term, that the decision “ sails very close to the wind,” we are inclined to affirm the order without costs to either party as against the other in this court.

¶2 All concur except Earl, J., dissenting.

¶3 Order affirmed.

/69/ny/212 · .json · Public domain