Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co.

126 A.D. 919

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1908·Published

Opinion

Kruse, J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that the name “ Corning Cut Glass Company,” adopted by the defendant, is so nearly like the plaintiff’s name as likely to deceive, and that the use thereof by the defendant in the same general business and in the same locality as that of the plaintiff was a fraud upon the plaintiff, within the rule applied in Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co. (144 N. Y. 462), and similar cases; and also that it is contrary to the express provisions of section 6 of the General Corporation Law,* and the filing of the defendant’s certificate■ of incorporation is not-conclusive upon the courts. (People ex rel. Columbia Co. v. O’Brien, 101 App. Div. 296.)

Footnotes

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

Kruse, J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that the name “ Corning Cut Glass Company,” adopted by the defendant, is so nearly like the plaintiff’s name as likely to deceive, and that the use thereof by the defendant in the same general business and in the same locality as that of the plaintiff was a fraud upon the plaintiff, within the rule applied in Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co. (144 N. Y. 462), and similar cases; and also that it is contrary to the express provisions of section 6 of the General Corporation Law,* and the filing of the defendant’s certificate■ of incorporation is not-conclusive upon the courts. (People ex rel. Columbia Co. v. O’Brien, 101 App. Div. 296.)

Footnotes

Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co., 126 A.D. 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

126 A.D. 919 (Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related