Legal Opinion

Dobbs & Co. v. Cobbs Haberdasher, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 18, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

It is entirely apparent to this court that the defendant, a competitor of plaintiff, has adopted its corporate name with a view of profiting from the long-established and successful business of plaintiff. No person of the name of “ Cobbs ” is connected with the defendant corporation and no excuse is offered for the adoption of such name, and the use of the name “ Cobbs ” by the defendant will, in our opinion, result in serious confusion of trade and deception of the public, and the adoption *373and use by defendant of a name so similar to plaintiff’s trade name, in our opinion, constitutes an act…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nu Enamel Corp. v. Nate Enamel Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  2. Kane v. Roxy Theatres Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
  3. Miles Shoes of New York, Inc. v. Niles Bootery, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API