Case Name: Gotham Music Service, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Denton and Haskins Music Publishing Co., Inc., Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-04-26
Citations: 259 N.Y. 86
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gotham Music Service, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Denton and Haskins Music Publishing Co., Inc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 259
Pages: 86–93

Head Matter:
Gotham Music Service, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Denton and Haskins Music Publishing Co., Inc., Appellant.
(Argued March 29, 1932;
decided April 26, 1932.)
Abner Greenberg for appellant.
The State courts have no jurisdiction over an action to protect exclusive rights in a copyrighted publication. (Underhill v. Schenck, 238 N. Y. 7; Palmer v. De Witt, 47 N. Y. 532; Jewelers’ Mercantile Agency v. Jewelers’ Weekly Pub. Co., 155 N. Y. 254; Harper v. Klaw, 232 Fed. Rep. 609.) Only the title of an original and copyrighted work can be protected. (Osgood v. Allen, 1 Holmes, 185; Underhill v. Scheneck, 238 N. Y. 7; Merriam v. Syndicate Pub. Co., 237 U. S. 622; Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp., 35 Fed. Rep. [2d] 279; Black v. Ehrich, 44 Fed. Rep. 793; Bamforth v. Douglas Post Card & Machine Co., 158 Fed. Rep. 355; Kipling v. Putnam, 120 Fed. Rep. 631; Kipling v. Fenno, 106 Fed. Rep. 692.) There is no question of unfair competition as the plaintiffs have no exclusive right to the production and sale of the work sued on. (White Studio v. Dreyfoos, 221 N. Y. 46; International Film Service v. Associated Producers, 273 Fed. Rep. 585; Underhill v. Schenck, 238 N. Y. 7; Glaser v. St. Elmo, 175 Fed. Rep. 276; Munro v. Tousey, 129 N. Y. 38; Crowell Pub. Co. v. Italian Printing Co., 28 Fed. Rep. [2d] 613; Wilcox v. Singer Machine Co., 14 Daly, 116; 118 N. Y. 677; Diamond Expansion Bolt Co. v. U. S. Expansion Bolt Co., 177 App. Div. 564.) Plaintiffs by permitting a general publication of the work prior to copyright protection lost all individual rights therein and the work became publici juris. (Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. [U. S.] 591; Werckmeister v. American Lithograph Co., 134 Fed. Rep. 321.)
Samuel Jesse Buzzell for respondents.
Where, through the efforts and expenditures of the plaintiffs, a title has acquired a secondary meaning in the identification of the plaintiffs’ musical composition, and the same has become associated with the good will of the plaintiffs’ business, the courts will grant injunctive relief and compel the defendant to account. (Klaw v. General Film Co., 154 N. Y. Supp. 988; 171 App. Div. 945; Aronson v. Fleckenstein, 28 Fed. Rep. 75; Hall v. Broadway Bazaar, 194 N. Y. 435; White Studio v. Dreyfoos, 221 N. Y. 46; Fisher v. Star Pub. Co., 231 N. Y. 414; Ramer Reviews, Inc., v. Service Bulletin, Inc., 16 T. M. R. 295; Monroe v. Tousey, 129 N. Y. 38; Mark Realty Corp. v. Hearst, 180 App. Div. 549; Ralston Purino Co. v. Sunnywax Paper Co., 26 Fed. Rep. [2d] 941; German American Button Co. v. Heymsfeld, Inc., 170 App. Div. 416; Burrow v. Marceau, 124 App. Div. 665; Vulcan v. Meyers, 139 N. Y. 364; Chappel v. Sheard, 2 K. & J. Rep. 117; Chappell v. Davidson, 2 K. & J. Rep. 123; Art Metal Works v. Cunningham Products Corp., 137 Misc. Rep. 429.) The title “ St. James’ Infirmary,” the name of plaintiffs’ musical composition, is an arbitrary and fanciful one, and not descriptive, and is susceptible of exclusive appropriation. (Frohman v. Morris, Inc., 123 N. Y. Supp. 1090.)

Opinion:
Pound, Ch. J.
Some years ago, as far back as 1925, a song called " Gambler's Blues " was sung and played throughout the country. It was a melancholy ballad purporting to have been sung by a gambler in a barroom after he had seen his sweetheart lying dead in the infirmary. It was not a copyrighted publication. Both song and melody became publici juris or of public right. Any one was free to produce them.
In March, 1929, the plaintiffs revived the old song under the title " St. James' Infirmary." The infirmary heretofore unidentified was given a name. They put forward an advertising and publicity campaign to sell the old composition under the new name. They made the song popular. In or about March, 1930, the defendant, a rival music publishing house, put on the market the same song and melody under the title " St. James' Infirmary or Gambler's Blues." Its nominal purpose was to link both titles under one name so that a customer who called for either might be supplied. The defendant has been restrained from using the title " St. James' Infirmary" or any simulation or imitation thereof as the title of a (i. e., any) musical composition and judgment for damages has been entered against it.
Infringement of copyright is not involved. Respondents' brief so states and the complaint contains no claim that copyright property has been misappropriated. If such were the grievance, the remedy would be in the Federal courts. (Underhill v. Schenck, 238 N. Y. 7.) Plaintiffs have no property in the name " St. James' Infirmary." The name describes the song and, generally speaking, any one may use it to describe the same song. (Black v. Ehrich, 44 Fed. Rep. 793; Atlas Mfg. Co. v. Street & Smith, 204 Fed. Rep. 398, 404; Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Pub. Co., 237 U. S. 618.) The plaintiffs must establish that defendant's acts amount to an unlawful abuse of competition by creating a reasonable likelihood of deception; that persons who desire the song and melody because plaintiffs have made them popular may be misled by defendant into thinking that they are purchasing the plaintiffs' version of the song. This they have wholly failed to accomplish.
Defendant is not deceiving the public. The song is popular, not because plaintiffs publish it, but because they have advertised it and thus made it known to the public. Their names are not identified with the new name. The demand is for the song and not for the publisher.
In Fisher v. Star Co. (231 N. Y. 414, 433) the equitable power of the court was invoked to restrain the use by others than Bud Fisher, the plaintiff, of the well-known " Mutt and Jeff " newspaper cartoons or humorous strips to which he had by his skill given a financial value although he had not at first protected them by copy right. The court held that " no person should be permitted to pass off as his own the thoughts and works of another." (White Studio, Inc., v. Dreyfoos, 221 N. Y. 46.) Fisher was so identified in the mind of the public as the creator of " Mutt and Jeff " that it would be unfair to him to permit others to put out their drawings of " Mutt and Jeff " in competition with his own drawings.
The situation here is quite different. A name which is descriptive of one song may not be attached by a competitor to another when the duplication will mislead the public into the belief that the two songs are alike, but the name, so far as it is a symbol descriptive of the old song, is not protected unless it is identified with the source or origin of production. (Underhill v. Schenck, supra.) Here it is sought to protect the title because plaintiffs invented it but no question of imitation or deception or mistake arises. No unlawful competition in trade is shown, nor breach? of contract or trust. In the absence of the use of the name in such a way as to create a likelihood that people wall be misled, the name is publici juris and may be used by all.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.