Case ID: ny-sup-ct_11/html/0651-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Davis, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JEREMIAH S. DEVLIN and another, Respondents, v. JOHN S. DEVLIN, Appellant.
    
      Injunction—restraining use of name.
    
    Appeal from an order of Special Term, adjudging defendant in contempt for violating the injunction of the court.
    The defendant had been enjoined from making use of the firm name of the plaintiffs, to attract custom to his shop by deception. The injunction restrained the defendant from using the firm name “ Devlin & Co.’,” in any form or manner; and it further ordered “ that the said John S. Devlin be, and he is hereby confined — whenever the word Devlin appears or is used in his advertisements, signs, placards, slips or other means and modes of making known his business or place of business, or offering for sale or selling his goods, wares or merchandise — to his own proper Christian, middle and surname conjoined, and without monograms, signs or other devices, which may tend to mislead or induce the public or any other person as aforesaid; and it is further ordered that the said John S. Devlin be and he hereby is confined to the use of his own name, John S. Devlin or. J. S. Devlin, without the use of a monogram containing the initials J. S. or other device as aforesaid; but nothing herein is to be construed or interpreted as preventing the said defendant from using his own name in his advertisements, signs or placards.” It was not claimed that the firm name “ Devlin & Co.” had been used ; but that a sign which contained the name J. S. Devlin, had been so arranged that it tended to mislead and deceive the public, in a manner forbidden by the injunction. The justice below came to the conclusion that that was the intent, of the arrangement of the figures, letters and words of the sign.
    The General Term was of the same opinion, and affirmed the order appealed from, with ten dollars costs besides disbursements.
    
      Walter Edwards, Jr., for the appellant.
    
      John E. Devlin, for the respondents.
   Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Brady and Daniels, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs besides disbursements.