Screen Test, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Screen Test, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co.

277 A.D.2d 755

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

DecidedMay 9, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 755 (Screen Test, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co.) 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

Screen Test, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., 277 A.D.2d 755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

We think it clear that any secondary meaning which the words “ Screen Test ”, as the title of plaintiff’s radio program, had acquired during six months of use, lapsed during three and one-half years of nonuse, so that by the end of that time there was no identifying of the words or title with plaintiff in the public mind. No article or product is here involved and no palming off, confusion or deceit of the public. Nor would we say that the idea of the program was a literary property. Under the circumstances the common-law trade-mark or name to which plaintiff lays claim did not survive the long period of nonuse, irrespective of any consideration of intentional abandonment. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See post, p. 864.]

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

We think it clear that any secondary meaning which the words “ Screen Test ”, as the title of plaintiff’s radio program, had acquired during six months of use, lapsed during three and one-half years of nonuse, so that by the end of that time there was no identifying of the words or title with plaintiff in the public mind. No article or product is here involved and no palming off, confusion or deceit of the public. Nor would we say that the idea of the program was a literary property. Under the circumstances the common-law trade-mark or name to which plaintiff lays claim did not survive the long period of nonuse, irrespective of any consideration of intentional abandonment. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See post, p. 864.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/screen-test-inc-v-american-broadcasting-co-nyappdiv-1950.