Case Name: LYNCH et al. v. JOHN SINGLE PAPER CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-11-14
Citations: 101 N.Y.S. 824
Docket Number: 
Parties: LYNCH et al. v. JOHN SINGLE PAPER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 101
Pages: 824–828

Head Matter:
LYNCH et al. v. JOHN SINGLE PAPER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
November 14, 1906.)
1. Tbade-Names—Union Label—Statutes.
A union of employés, having affiliated with and subject to its jurisdiction various councils, adopted and registered a label to designate the product of the labor of the members thereof, and transmitted the same to a subordinate council. Held that, when the union adopted the label, it adopted it for the members of its various subordinate councils, within Labor Law, Laws 1897, p. 466, c. 415, § 15, providing that a union of employés may adopt a label designating the products of the labor of the members thereof.
2. Same—Assignability.
Labor Law, Laws 1897, p. 466, c. 415, § 15, providing that a union of employés may adopt a label to designate the product of the labor of the members thereof, and the certificate issued by the secretary of state shall not be assignable, confers on a union a property right in a label adopted and registered by it, which right it cannot assign, but which right it may confer on its members composing a subordinate branch.
8. Same—Infringement—Actions—Parties.
Labor Law, Laws 1897, p. 466, c. 415, $ 16, as amended, makes it a misdemeanor to illegally use a label adopted by a labor union, and provides that a union may enjoin a wrongful use of its label and recover the damages resulting. A labor union adopted and registered a label to designate the product of the labor of its members. The union had affiliated with it and subordinate to it various councils. The label adopted by the union was furnished to a council. Held, that the union and the subordinate council properly united in an action for a wrongful use of the label.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol, 46, Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, § 98.]
Nash and Williams, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term.
Action by James M. Lynch, as president of the International Typographical Union of North America, and James Taylor, as president of the Allied Printing Trades Council of the City of Syracuse, against the John Single Paper Company. From án interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed, with leave to defendant to plead over, on payment of the costs of the demurrer and of the appeal.
The opinion of Justice Andrews, delivered at Special Term, is as follows :
Assuming that such an action as the present may be maintained under and by virtue of the labor law, there is no misjoinder of parties plaintiff. If the International Typographical Union is the owner of the label in question, and if it has conferred upon the Allied Printing Trades Council the exclusive right to use such label in the city of Syracuse, both may properly be joined as plaintiffs to prevent its unauthorized use and to recover such damages as its misuse may have occasioned. The situation is analogous to that where the owner of a patent has given exclusive license for a certain territory. Here both owner and licensee should be plaintiffs in equitable actions brought against one Infringing within that territory. Walker on Patents (4th Ed.) § 400.
The more important question involved in this demurrer is, therefore, whether a cause of action is stated in favor of the International Typographical Union and the Allied Printing Trades Council, its licensee. Section 15 of the labor law (Laws 1897, p. 466, c. 415) provides that a union or association of em ployés may adopt a device in the form of a label for the purpose of designating the products of the labor of the members thereof. Copies are to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State, who shall issue a certificate of the filing thereof. This certificate shall not be assignable by the union or association to whom it is issued. Section 16, as originally adopted, provided that a penalty might be collected in a civil action by the party aggrieved against one using a label without authority, and such aggrieved party was authorized to maintain an action to enjoin the unauthorized use of such label and to recover such damages as might result from such unauthorized use. In 1902 the provision relating to the penalty was stricken out, and a provision making the unlawful use of the label a crime was inserted. Whether or not, independent of the statute, the International Typographical Union had a property right to this label which the courts would protect, see Strasser v. Moonelis, 23 Jones & Spencer (N. Y.) 197. At least, the statute, so far as the equitable remedy is concerned, is not penal. It should be fairly and liberally construed, so that the wrongs which the Legislature intended to redress may be reached.
It appears from the complaint that the International Typographical Union is an association of employés, having affiliated with it and subject to its jurisdiction various printing trades councils. One of these, the Allied Printing Trades Council, is a subordinate body of, and affiliated with, and subject to the general control and direction of the International Typographical Union. In 1896 the International Typographical Union adopted and registered a certain label “for the purpose of designating the products of the labor of the members of the various bodies affiliated with it and under its jurisdiction and control”; and for that purpose it has “furnished and transmitted the same to the local unions and subordinate bodies of said International Typographical Union.” It may fairly be inferred, therefore, that the various trades councils are local branches of the International Typographical Union. Their members are its members, and, when it adopted a label for the purpose of designating the products of the labor of such members, it might fairly be said, in the language of the statute, to have adopted it for the purpose of designating the products of its members. It next appears that the International Typographical Union has conferred upon the Allied Printing Tradles Council of Syracuse the exclusive right to use and control this label in that city. The statute has conferred a property right in such a label, even if its originator did not already possess it. This right could be sold or assigned, unless these acts were prohibited. Fairly construed, the statute does mean to prohibit such an assignment. Not, however, a license conferred by the Union or association upon some of its members or legal branches to use the label in a specified locality.
Next it is stated that the defendant has without authority used this label, and intends to continue such use, to its profit and the damage of the plaintiffs, and judgment for an injunction and damages is therefore asked. It is claimed that under the statute only the union or association filing the label may maintain an action to prevent its unjustifiable use, and that, therefore, no cause of action is stated by the Allied Printing Trades Council. Probably such an action might be maintained independently of the statute (Strasser v, Moonelis, cited above), but in any event the construction claimed is too narrow. The language Is not exclusive. To so hold would, in such an action as the present, where the presence of both plaintiffs is necessary to a complete determination of the questions involved, be a denial of justice. What the Legislature meant, and all that it meant, was that the parties injured might maintain such an action.
The demurrer must therefore be overruled, upon the usual terms.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.
Hopkins & Howlett, for appellant.
Thompson, Woods & Smith, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant to plead over, upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal, on opinion of Andrews, J., delivered at Special Term.
MCLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING and KRUSE, JJ., concur.