Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

GINETTE JACCARD, Also Known as GINETTE DEPARIS, and GINETTE DEPARIS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. R.H. MACY CO., Defendant.

HOFSTADTER, J.

The individual plaintiff brings this action for an alleged violation of sections 50 Civ. Rights and 51 Civ. Rights of the Civil Rights Law and joins with the corporate plaintiff in seeking damages for unfair competition. Ginette Jaggard, who is a well-known dress designer, originally filed a certificate to do business under the assumed name of "Ginette deParis" and thereafter engaged in business under that name. In 1935 she caused to be formed a corporation known as Ginette deParis, Inc., and granted to it the sole and exclusive right to use the name she had adopted in connection with the sale of dresses.

The violation alleged is the use of the name "Ginette deParis" in connection with the sale of patterns of a dress designed by the plaintiff.

It is clear that no cause of action has been established. Neither a partnership name ( Rosenwasser v. Ogoglia, 172 A.D. 107), nor a corporate name ( Madison Square Garden Corp. v. Universal Pictures Co., Inc., N.Y.L.J. June 9, 1938, p. 2789, SHIENTAG, J.) is within the protection of the Civil Rights Law. It follows logically that a name assumed for business purposes only, the exclusive use of which has been granted to a corporation, is in the same category. (Cf. Gardella v. Log Cabin Products Co., 89 F. [2d] 891.)

In no aspect do the facts establish the charge of unfair competition. Judgment for the defendant.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JACCARD v. MACY CO
(Mar 28, 1941)