Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1910
• Citation: 197 N.Y. 173,90 N.E. 449
• Parties: CORNING GLASS WORKS v. CORNING CUT GLASS CO. et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

197 N.Y. 173

90 N.E. 449

CORNING GLASS WORKS

v.CORNING CUT GLASS CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 4, 1910.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Suit by the Corning Glass Works against the Corning Cut Glass Company and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (126 App. Div. 919,110 N. Y. Supp. 1125), affirming a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to obtain an injunction, which should permanently restrain the defendant from doing business under the name of the ‘Corning Cut Glass Company,’ and to recover the damages sustained. The answer put in issue the allegations of the complaint, upon which the equitable relief was demanded. The case was tried before a referee, who made findings of fact, based upon the evidence. It appears therefrom that the plaintiff had been incorporated, in 1875, for the purpose of manufacturing glass and glassware at Corning, in the state of New York. Its manufactures consisted in lantern globes, chimneys, tubing, bulbs, and other articles made of glass, including ‘blanks' furnished to glass cutters for cutting or engraving. The manufacturing of these ‘blanks' amounted to about 10 per cent. of its total business, and substantially all of them were sold to two firms, which were engaged in the business of glass cutting at Corning. The plaintiff has never engaged in the cutting of glass. The two firms mentioned sold their cut glass wares under distinctive trademarks, which had no reference whatever to the plaintiff, and the ‘blanks' furnished by the plaintiff to them constituted but a portion of what they used. The city of Corning, by reason of the extensive business carried on in the manufacture of glasswares, both plain and cut, had acquired a wide reputation with the public as a center for such products. Many concerns are engaged in the business, and the name of the city is associated with glass manufactures. Some years after the plaintiff had established itself, the defendant, the Corning Cut Glass Company, was incorporated for the purpose of ‘buying, manufacturing, selling and dealing in cut and other kinds of glass.’ It located its works in the town of Corning, at a short distance from the city in order to gain the advantage of the reputation enjoyed by that city as a center of cut glass manufacture, and the adoption of its corporate name was with similar intention. The cut glass manufactured by the defendant does not come into direct competition with that manufactured by the firms, which have been referred to as cutting glass upon ‘blanks' furnished by the plaintiff, and the evidence does not show that they have suffered in their business by reason of any competition of the defendant. The referee also found that the plaintiff has not sustained any damage in its business of manufacturing ‘blanks' from the acts of the defendant, or by its use of the name ‘Corning Cut Glass Company.’ Judgment was directed in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, and that judgment has been affirmed by the Appellate Division, in the Fourth Department, by a divided court. The plaintiff has further appealed to this court.

Frederick Collin, for appellant.

J. O. Sebring, for respondents.

GRAY, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The dissent in the Appellate Division was upon the ground that the name adopted by the defendant is so similar to that of the plaintiff as to be calculated to deceive, and, in connection with the business carried on in the same locality, to amount to a fraud upon the latter. I think that the case has been correctly decided, and that its facts do not afford support for the charge that the defendant has brought itself within the inhibition, either of the rule established by the decisions, or of our statutory provision, which forbids the adoption, in a certificate of incorporation, of the ‘same name as a corporation authorized to do business under the laws of this state, or a name so nearly resembling it as to be calculated to deceive.’ Gen. Corp. Law, § 6; Consol. Laws, p. 1319, c. 23. The claim of the plaintiff to equitable relief by way of the injunction demanded is placed upon this ground: That the similarity between the names ‘is liable to produce confusion of business, and to mislead those transacting business with either corporation,’ and ‘to create unfair trade.’ It is argued, in its behalf, that the defendant should be restrained from using the word ‘Corning’ as part of its corporate name, and that its adoption was ‘the invasion of a legal right, which entitles the plaintiff to the injunction, without regard to the question of intent, or damage.’ The difficulty with the plaintiff's case is that it has not been able to show that its business is interfered with by any competition on the part of the defendant. If its claim for relief is rested upon the notion that there is competition by the defendant, actual, or to be apprehended, with the business of the two firms, which take from it the glass ‘blanks' required for the making of cut glass, I think there are two answer. In the first place, it is inconceivable that it may maintain an action for the alleged protection of some of its customers, who are not complaining; and, in the second place, as matter of fact, these customers are found not to have been interfered with by any competition of the defendant. In result the plaintiff's claim is reduced to this: That it is entitled to preventive relief, merely because of a similarity in names, which is liable to create unfair trade, by reason of a possible confusion in the minds of those transacting business with either corporation, to its probable injury. If that were borne out by the facts, doubtless, the plaintiff would have a standing in court to protect itself against injury reasonably to be anticipated. If it be made to appear that there is real ground for a present...