New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-12-20
STOLEN ADVERTISING.

The decision Of Justice Staplctuu loo
the Supreme Court Yesterday granting
10 The New York World" an iniunr-
ton restraining Levi Brothers a Co.,
proprietorS Of the Berlin Store in
Brooklyn, from inserting advertising
sheets i'm the Sunday newspapers
promises TO put a stop 10 the attempts
OF some merchants 10 steal advertising
aud 10 relieve newspaper leaders from
Il growing nuisance TWenty-four
hours before in Manhattan Judge Eos
ter, Of the Court Or General Sessions.
also upheld on appeal a linc imposed
nearly year ago on Samuel llOroWitz,
newsdraier. for inserting similar
padding in newspapers. SO il appears
that the courts Offer 10 the public and
the publishers q double protection
against This fraud. The merchant who
tries mechanically TO get the advcr-
Using aud the neWsdealer who abcts
his scheme can both be reached by the
law.
IN the case Of the ueWSdealcr The
magistrate found that his conduct was
disordcrly and a violation Of the ordi-
nance forbidding the distribution of
circulars in the streets or in front of
>toopS II houses. I'm the case Of Levi
Brothers & CO. Justice Stapleton says:
The scheme is plainly design To
deceive tle ordinary reader. casually
reading. into believing that an extern
sive advertisement of the defendant Is
printed IN newspaper Of recognized
efficiency a. an advertising medium. j.
Is not essential that the stimulation be
perfect and complete ID il be- such Ii re-
sembiance as will probably deceive the
ordinary reader, giving such attention
10 IL as is ordinarily given.
Unfair competition in business. con-
Quoted with the intent on the part or
the unfair competitor % avail himself
of The reputation Of his competitor and
10 palm off his goods as those Of the
other has I'm proper cases constituted
ground for equitable relief
This will certainly appeal 10 the pub
lie as good sense. As the court points
out, the sale Of newspaper is distin.
guiShable from that Of groceries. The
producers OF the latter have no inter.
est in the product beyond the sale to
the distributors. but the publisher is
vitally interested in having the reader
get the proper contents Of the paper
unencumbered with eNtraneOuS matter.
These surreptltiOuS inserts are intended
not merely TO secure publicity without
paying for It as honest merchants do.
but also 10 trade on the newspapers
This is a wrong 10 honest advertisers.
who are thus subjected TO unfair COM
petition: il is q wrong 10 the public.
which is deceived by these inserts into
thinking the merchant is large adj
vertiser in their newspaper. and il is
"A wrong 10 the newspaper publisher,
whose prestige and power ST access 10
readers are appropriated without pay
ment To him. The publication of Il
newspaper is expensive. and If a seeker
for publicity can get what TO the
reader seems conspicuous place i'm
this costly product at the mere charge
Of printing handbills he has cheated
the publisher.
Moreover. newspaper is responsible
for its advertising as well as its news.
and serious harm to IFS reputation
may he done by the insertion among
it's pages Of improper matter which il
might refuse to print. The public may
fairly assume that the merchant who
thus tries 10 steal advertising does not
cnnluct business OH "A hioh mime and