National Distillers Products Corp. v. Columbus Circle Liquor Stores, Inc.

166 Misc. 719, 2 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1286
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 14, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 166 Misc. 719 (National Distillers Products Corp. v. Columbus Circle Liquor Stores, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook
National Distillers Products Corp. v. Columbus Circle Liquor Stores, Inc., 166 Misc. 719, 2 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1286 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Opinion

Steuer, J.

On this application for a temporary injunction only one point is raised. It is argued that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief it seeks because it has failed to enjoin other retailers who are also violating the fair trade agreements. Defendant did not sign a fair trade agreement, but admits receiving notice and cutting prices. There is no doubt that an issue was raised which, if material, is sufficient to defeat this application. There is nothing in the Fair Trade Act (Laws of 1935, chap. 976; McKinney’s Unconsol. Laws, §§ 2201-2205) which compels the owner of a trade-marked product to take any action to protect price levels. The statute is wholly permissive, and allows him to do so if he chooses. Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how his failure to act in one instance can deprive him of his rights in another. The familiar answer to defendant’s argument, namely, that it is impossible to restrain all violators simultaneously, is not the controlling factor. Defendant has alleged sufficient to raise an issue whether plaintiff’s actions are not intentional in requiring certain, dealers to maintain prices and allowing others to do as they please. ^Assuming that this is so, the resulting situation is created by the statute and is a consequence of the powers granted under it. The fact that the statute creates inequities is not a ground for a court’s refusal to enforce it. The remedy lies with the Legislature^

The motion is granted. Submit bond in the sum of $1,500.

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

Related

National Distillers & Chemical Corp. v. R. H. Macy & Co.
23 A.D.2d 51 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Anderson v. Bargain Town, U. S. A., Inc.
14 Misc. 2d 837 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Fogel v. Bolet
194 Misc. 1019 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)
Lentheric, Inc. v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
35 Pa. D. & C. 572 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1939)
Calvert Distillers Corporation v. Stockman
26 F. Supp. 73 (E.D. New York, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 Misc. 719, 2 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-distillers-products-corp-v-columbus-circle-liquor-stores-inc-nysupct-1938.