Case Name: Ernest M. Burrow, Plaintiff, v. Theodore Marcean et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-05
Citations: 67 Misc. 656
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ernest M. Burrow, Plaintiff, v. Theodore Marcean et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
Ernest M. Burrow, Plaintiff, v. Theodore Marcean et al., Defendants.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
May, 1910.)
Trade marks and trade names: What may be appropriated — Loss or forfeiture of protection: Acquisition, transfer and abandonment — Assignment — Assignability of trade name.
The photograph business is in the nature of a profession as distinguished from a trade or mercantile pursuit and the name “ Sarony ” used as a trade mark was personal to the photographer who bore it, because of his personal skill and artistic excellence, and is not assignable; nor can a printer who is not a photographer be protected in its use.
Motion to dismiss complaint.
Allen & Sabine, for plaintiff.
M. Goodman (Morgan J. O’Brien, of counsel), for defendants.

Opinion:
O'Gorman, J.
The evidence, prescribes a clear case of unfair competition which would justify equitable relief if the plaintiff's own conduct were free from criticism, but the photographic business is in the nature of a profession or calling as distinguished from a trade or mercantile pursuit, and the trade-mark "Sarony" being personal to Napoleon S'arony, because of his personal skill and artistic excellence, was not assignable. When the plaintiff, who is a printer and not a photographer, holds himself out as " Sarony " and "the original Sarony" he is perpetrating a fraud upon the public, and in such a case equity will withhold relief. Prince, v. Prince, 134 N. Y. 24; Hegeman v. Hegeman, 8 Daly, 1.
Complaint dismissed, with costs.