Berger Service Cleaning & Dyeing Corp. v. Berger Cleaners Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berger Service Cleaning & Dyeing Corp. v. Berger Cleaners Inc.

271 A.D.2d 264

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 264 (Berger Service Cleaning & Dyeing Corp. v. Berger Cleaners Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berger Service Cleaning & Dyeing Corp. v. Berger Cleaners Inc., 271 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not regard an ordinary telephone directory listing in accordance with the usual practice .of the telephone company an advertisement, or a listing of ‘ ‘ Arthur Berger Cleaners, Inc.” as “ Berger, Arthur Cleaners, Inc.,” in accordance with that practice, a violation of the decree in this case. Nor do we regard an advertisement using the proper name “ Arthur Berger Cleaners, Inc.,” a violation of the decree because it appears on a “ B ” page, rather than on an “ A ” page of the directory. Bold type employed in the classified listing, being paid advertising, makes that listing questionable, so the injunction may stand against that advertising, allowing only an ordinary classified listing. The order appealed from should be modified in accordance with this opinion.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon and Peck, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously modified in accordance with opinion, without costs. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

We do not regard an ordinary telephone directory listing in accordance with the usual practice .of the telephone company an advertisement, or a listing of ‘ ‘ Arthur Berger Cleaners, Inc.” as “ Berger, Arthur Cleaners, Inc.,” in accordance with that practice, a violation of the decree in this case. Nor do we regard an advertisement using the proper name “ Arthur Berger Cleaners, Inc.,” a violation of the decree because it appears on a “ B ” page, rather than on an “ A ” page of the directory. Bold type employed in the classified listing, being paid advertising, makes that listing questionable, so the injunction may stand against that advertising, allowing only an ordinary classified listing. The order appealed from should be modified in accordance with this opinion.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon and Peck, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously modified in accordance with opinion, without costs. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berger-service-cleaning-dyeing-corp-v-berger-cleaners-inc-nyappdiv-1946.