Burrow v. Marcean
This text of 67 Misc. 656 (Burrow v. Marcean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The evidence, prescribes a clear case of unfair competition which would justify equitable relief if the plaintiff’s own conduct were free from criticism, but the photographic business is in the nature of a profession or calling as distinguished from a trade or mercantile pursuit, and the trade-mark “Sarony” being personal to Napoleon S'arony, because of his personal skill and artistic excellence, was not assignable. When the plaintiff, who is a printer and not a photographer, holds himself out as “ Sarony ” and “the original Sarony” he is perpetrating a fraud upon the public, and in such a case equity will withhold relief. Prince, v. Prince, 134 N. Y. 24; Hegeman v. Hegeman, 8 Daly, 1.
Complaint dismissed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
67 Misc. 656, 124 N.Y.S. 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burrow-v-marcean-nysupct-1910.