Kopper's Chocolate Specialty Co. v. David Kopper Candy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kopper's Chocolate Specialty Co. v. David Kopper Candy Corp.

4 A.D.2d 1012, 168 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3769

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 1012 (Kopper's Chocolate Specialty Co. v. David Kopper Candy Corp.) 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

Kopper's Chocolate Specialty Co. v. David Kopper Candy Corp., 4 A.D.2d 1012, 168 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs to appellant. Concur — Peck, P. J., Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.; Rabin, J., dissents and votes to reverse and order a new trial in the following memorandum: In my opinion plaintiff established a prima facie case since the agreement in evidence indicates that Kopper, through whom defendants base their right to use the name, gave up to the plaintiff all “ claim ” and “ any proprietary interest ” therein. Although on this record there was no need to establish a secondary meaning, the proof tended to establish one. There was likewise proof of confusion. Defendants should have been put to their proof and the complaint should not have been dismissed upon the close of the plaintiff’s ease. [See post, p. 1013.]

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs to appellant. Concur — Peck, P. J., Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.; Rabin, J., dissents and votes to reverse and order a new trial in the following memorandum: In my opinion plaintiff established a prima facie case since the agreement in evidence indicates that Kopper, through whom defendants base their right to use the name, gave up to the plaintiff all “ claim ” and “ any proprietary interest ” therein. Although on this record there was no need to establish a secondary meaning, the proof tended to establish one. There was likewise proof of confusion. Defendants should have been put to their proof and the complaint should not have been dismissed upon the close of the plaintiff’s ease. [See post, p. 1013.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 1012, 168 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koppers-chocolate-specialty-co-v-david-kopper-candy-corp-nyappdiv-1957.