The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-01-11

that's the NAME Tnksn ~ the new Dnuy.
"New York Ceurpnereiair Bsinr Barrea.

. -ANVNs
Tho "Ne,c Pork -" which began life AZ q
daily newspaper last week Monday, and was to
DO the Netc Pork Commercial, but was c~njoined
at the instance OF the Commercial advertiser
from using tho latter part Of Its name, will mp
pear to-day with Commercial" again as part
of Its title, ana Its publishers, d. o. Haynes &
Co., believe that the public will still call It tho
Commercial" in view Of the ancient ~associa-
tion OF that name with tho older publications
that have boon merged into It. It will appear
to-day rs Commercial america. The publishers
will make this announcement:
Justice DAILY Of tho New York Supreme Court
has permanently ~enjoined us from issuing this
paper, rs proposed, under the name Nctp Pork
Commercial, but he mobiles the original In
junction by permitting us to use the word
COMMERCIAL as on adjective, AZ indeed we
have used 1t since 1916. Boston, Buffalo, Louis
vile, Atlanta, and other cities have their Com
mercials,' and we wanted to give New York its
Commercially but the court has seen At to re-
strain us from any such l~audable enterprise. and
we therefore bow to the inevitable. After all,
there fs something more to o paper than q name,
and to the business world Commercial america
Justice DAILY said. in making the injunction
permanent:
The proofs seem to clearly establish that tho
name adopted by the defendant for his newspa-
per will lead to its being confused with the
plaintiffs paper and that injury to the plaintiff
Ahu uCNCpIloh uDOh IL puutlC VII TBbutt. n
great number of Instances are given in which
articles copied from the Commercial. advertiser
city are credited 70 the .NeS Yorf Commerciai.
Sfd tive Me m9 asy. with MhIIRS roIp p sssy, sSs0 c ,qdtSIshh notice Ice
abundant proof. that the plaintiffs paper is
hardly ever spoken Of as the Adpertiser or the
Commercial Adrertiser, but generally as tho
therefore, of the title the Ne,o Pork Commercial.
is an appropriation of the name heretofore iden-
titled with plaintiffs paper.
"The adOntlOn Of n mama which. thOnph mt
an exact imitation Of the whole name used by
the injured party, is calsula1sd to deceive and
action by. the proprietors of the hotel called the
+. Irving House to restrain the use of the name
indiscriminately as the Irving House. and the
Irving HOTEL For the same reason, the pub
licntion Of a neTspspsr under the J, name Of tho
which had come to be generally known
the exclusive use of the popular title, although
10 was not the actual name. was protected. In
Journal and tho Daily London J~ournai,the Iron
Irads Circular and the IRON Ii,ade Cfreriar
ea1tsd ey aS Sgm ~ H gyfodfh Sso the B SGtio Ga-t PGif''
THE plaintiff presents q stronger case Of In.
frinRoment OF trademark in that, by general
the substantive advertiser has come to be
employed popularity to designate ITS paIesr ..tandd
v Which Il The Is de efnasd neep has t ttempte ed' to nai Sppro.
pirate. 1t .s the undoubted right of the de-
PENDANT TO use the adjective commercial in
connection with any name other than the plain.
tiff 8, thus employing it in Its proper sense; but
no exceeds his right when he makes the arbi-
trary and unusual use Of it which popular
usage has applied to the plaintiff g paper, and
which cannot fairly be appropriated by any
other publication.
1.-The injunction order forbids tho publication
of O, newspaper the name or partial name Of
which shall be tho .Ne,o York Commercial.
This, | think. should be modified so as not to
prohibit the use of tho word commercial as an
adjective in connection with tiny substantive
which does not initiate the title of the plaintiffs
paper. The use Of the word rs n partial name,
Comnercfai List. would not be an infringe.
ment."