Case ID: ny_217/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Innovation Ingenuities, Inc., Appellant, v. New York Times Company, Respondent.
    
      Innovation Ingenuities, Inc., v. N. Y. Times Co., 161 App. Div. 929, affirmed.
    (Argued February 1, 1916;
    decided February 22, 1916.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 10, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion by defendant for judgment in its favor upon the pleadings. The complaint in substance alleges that the plaintiff is the exclusive selling agent of a certain innovation or wardrobe trunk covered by letters patent and well known to the general public; that on a certain day the defendant, which is engaged in the business of publishing a newspaper, printed therein a large advertisement for R. H. Macy & Co., calling attention among other things to a sale of Macy’s “Peerless Wardrobe Trunk ” for twenty-four dollars and seventy-four cents, accompanied by a picture or illustration which correctly portrayed the plaintiff’s trunk; that the trunk represented by the illustration was not for sale at R. H. Macy & Co., but on the contrary, the trunk which they were selling was a totally different trunk than that represented by said illustration; that the result of the advertisement was that readers of the Times were caused to believe that the plaintiff’s trunks, which were universally sold at twenty-five dollars and forty-five dollars, were being sold at R. H. Macy & Co. at twenty-four dollars and seventy-four cents, and as a result of said representations large numbers of persons were induced to go to R. H. Macy & Oo. and purchase Macy’s trunk, who but for said advertisement would have purchased the trunk sold by plaintiff.
    
      Adam K. Stricker for appellant.
    
      Harold Nathan and Alfred A. Cook for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ.