Murray v. Miller
Decision Date | 08 June 1955 |
Citation | 142 N.Y.S.2d 857 |
Parties | Alan MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. Jerry MILLER, Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court |
Lyman Stansky, New York City, for plaintiff.
Richard L. Davisson, New York City, for defendant.
Plaintiff and the defendant are rival shoe manufacturers. Both make shoes to conform to the shape and contour of the human foot. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin alleged unfair competition on the part of the defendant and to recover incidental damage. Plaintiff is the originator of a method of manufacturing shoes to conform to the shape and contour of the human foot. The shoe is manufactured from a replica of the foot in plaster cast. On October 24, 1949, letters patent were granted to the plaintiff for his method. Plaintiff licensed one Emanuel E. Sugarman to make foot impressions and casts under plaintiff's patent and plaintiff manufactured shoes pursuant to these casts for the licensee. The said Sugarman formed a corporation under the title 'Foot Contour Shoe Laboratories, Inc.' and the license agreement was assigned to this corporation. This corporation in January 1946 employed the defendant who in the course of his duties made plaster casts of feet pursuant to the license agreement. The plaster casts were sent to the plaintiff for the actual manufacture of the shoes. The license agreement between the plaintiff and the Foot Contour Shoe Laboratories, Inc. was terminated on or before Jaunary 6, 1948. Thereafter the defendant and Sugarman continued to make casts of human feet and to manufacture shoes therefrom. The complaint does not, as of necessity it cannot, seek any relief for any claimed infringement of any patents owned by the plaintiff. Similarly, the complaint tenders no issue with regard to any violation of trade secrets.
During the period of the license, shoes manufactured by the plaintiff for the licensee were advertised by the licensee as 'contour shoes'. Plaintiff contends that persons buying shoes from the licensee associated that description with shoes manufactured by the plaintiff and that the subsequent continuation of the description 'contour shoes' when the defendant manufactured his own shoes tends to and did mislead persons into thinking the were buying plaintiff's shoes. No satisfactory evidence has been adduced to substantiate plaintiff's contention on this point. While some advertising by the defendant and his predecessors associated the 'Murray Method Shoe' with the descriptive phrase 'contour...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Speedry Products, Inc. v. Dri Mark Products, Inc.
...v. Ziff-Davis Pub. Co., 282 App.Div. 200, 122 N.Y.S.2d 92; Catalina, Inc. v. Ganis, 207 Misc. 1068, 142 N.Y.S. 65; Murray v. Miller, Sup., 142 N.Y.S.2d 857, modified 3 A.D.2d 1008, 164 N.Y.S.2d 257. Cf. Santa's Workshop v. Sterling, 282 App.Div. 328, 122 N.Y.S. 2d Proof of secondary meaning......
-
Party House Caterers, Inc. v. Weingarten
...careless persons. Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co., 197 N.Y. 173, 180, 90 N.E. 449, 451, In the recent case of Murray v. Miller, Sup.1955, 142 N.Y.S.2d 857, plaintiff and defendant were rival shoe manufacturers, and both made shoes to the shape and contour of the human foot. Pla......