In Klein v. Lawson (58 N. Y. S. 2d 152, affd. 269 App. Div. 935) the court, in denying a motion for an injunction, said (p. 152-153): "Motion denied.
Summary of this case from MATTER OF INDUS. LITHOGRAPHIC CO. v. MillerOctober 19, 1945.
Present — Martin, P.J., Townley, Glennon, Callahan and Wasservogel, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion.
In Klein v. Lawson (58 N. Y. S. 2d 152, affd. 269 App. Div. 935) the court, in denying a motion for an injunction, said (p. 152-153): "Motion denied.
Summary of this case from MATTER OF INDUS. LITHOGRAPHIC CO. v. MillerIn Klein v. Lawson (58 N.Y.S.2d 152, affd. 269 A.D. 935) the court, in denying a motion for an injunction, said (p. 152-153): "Motion denied.
Summary of this case from Matter of Indus. Lithographic Co. v. MillerIn Klein v. Lawson (supra, p. 153) the court in that connection said: "The fact that some of plaintiffs' patrons have unthinkingly or mistakenly entered defendants' establishment furnishes no ground for equitable interference" (citing Munro v. Tousey, 129 N.Y. 38.)
Summary of this case from Matter of Indus. Lithographic Co. v. MillerFull title:ALEX KLEIN et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of EXCLUSIVE…
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Oct 19, 1945
"Industrial" and "Offset" are words of the English language and no one has a monopoly thereon. In Klein v.…
Matter of Indus. Lithographic Co. v. Miller"Industrial" and "Offset" are words of the English language and no one has a monopoly thereon. In Klein v.…