Barricini, Inc. v. Barricini Shoes, Inc.

1 A.D.2d 905, 149 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 1956·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action to restrain the use of the name “Barricini” by respondents and for other relief, the appeal is from an order denying appellants’ motion to restrain such use during the pendency of the action. Order affirmed, without costs. There was no showing by appellants of such irreparable injury and such a clear right to the relief demanded as would warrant the granting of a temporary injunction affording them substantially all the relief which they could obtain if they were successful after trial. (Cf. Clark v. King & Bro. Pub. Co., 40 App. Div. 405, 408; Weiss v. Herlihy, 23 App. Div. 608, 612, and Tru Val Manufacturers v. Tru-Valu Corner, 1 Misc 2d 844.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Barricini, Inc. v. Barricini Shoes, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 905, 149 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

1 A.D.2d 905 (Barricini, Inc. v. Barricini Shoes, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Unicast Development Corp. v. Mueller-Phipps International, Inc.
67 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Union Kol-Flo Corp. v. Basil
64 A.D.2d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Brand v. Bartlett
52 A.D.2d 272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
DeLury v. City of New York
48 A.D.2d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
New England Petroleum Corp. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp.
82 Misc. 2d 561 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)