Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Shirt Shop, Inc.

S.D. New York

Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Shirt Shop, Inc.

3 F. Supp. 487, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1882

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 30, 1929·Published

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

I think this is a plain case for injunctive relief. The only conceivable reason for the use of the name “Dunhill” by the defendant is to trade on the reputation and good will of the plaintiff. Indeed, that in substance is admitted in the answering affidavit, where it is stated that the name was chosen “because we wanted a name for our men’s haberdashery shop that would be associated with ‘the English’ because of that people’s great reputation in turning out well dressed men.”

It is no answer that the defendant sells shirts, and the plaintiff, smokers’ requisites. Wall v. Rolls-Royce (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 333; Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 972. Nor is it a defense that the defendant is incorporated, and that the name Dunhill appears in its corporate title. Peck Bros. & Co. v. Peck Bros. Co. (C. C. A.) 113 F. 291, 62 L. R. A. 81; Anheuser-Busch v. Budweiser Malt Products Corp. (C. C. A.) 295 F. 306.

The motion for a preliminary injunction is, therefore, granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COXE, District Judge.

I think this is a plain case for injunctive relief. The only conceivable reason for the use of the name “Dunhill” by the defendant is to trade on the reputation and good will of the plaintiff. Indeed, that in substance is admitted in the answering affidavit, where it is stated that the name was chosen “because we wanted a name for our men’s haberdashery shop that would be associated with ‘the English’ because of that people’s great reputation in turning out well dressed men.”

It is no answer that the defendant sells shirts, and the plaintiff, smokers’ requisites. Wall v. Rolls-Royce (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 333; Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 972. Nor is it a defense that the defendant is incorporated, and that the name Dunhill appears in its corporate title. Peck Bros. & Co. v. Peck Bros. Co. (C. C. A.) 113 F. 291, 62 L. R. A. 81; Anheuser-Busch v. Budweiser Malt Products Corp. (C. C. A.) 295 F. 306.

The motion for a preliminary injunction is, therefore, granted.

Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Shirt Shop, Inc., 3 F. Supp. 487, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1882 (S.D.N.Y. 1929).

Pincite

3 F. Supp. 487 (Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Shirt Shop, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related