David B. Findlay, Inc. v. Findlay
150 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 223, 18 N.Y.2d 12, 218 N.E.2d 531 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right to use one's own name in a business is not absolute and may be enjoined as unfair competition if its use is likely to cause public confusion and diversion of trade from another's established business, even without proof of fraudulent intent.
Facts:
- Brothers David B. Findlay ('David') and Walstein C. Findlay ('Wally') inherited a family art gallery business.
- In 1938, the brothers separated their business interests; David established his gallery on East 57th Street in New York, while Wally operated a gallery in Chicago under the name 'Findlay Galleries, Inc.'
- Over 25 years, David's gallery, known as 'Findlay's on 57th St.', developed a significant reputation and goodwill, specializing in French impressionist art.
- In 1963, Wally purchased a building at 17 East 57th Street, next door to David's gallery, with the intent to open his own gallery.
- Despite David's objections, Wally opened his gallery under the name 'Wally Findlay Galleries' after initially indicating he might use 'W. C. F. Galleries.'
- Both brothers' galleries specialized in similar types of art, namely French impressionist and post-impressionist painters.
- The opening of Wally's gallery led to numerous instances of public confusion, including misdirected phone calls and mail, customers mistakenly congratulating David on the new gallery, and confusingly similar advertisements.
Procedural Posture:
- David B. Findlay sued Walstein C. Findlay in a New York trial court, seeking an injunction to prevent the use of the 'Findlay' name.
- The trial court found for the plaintiff and granted an injunction preventing the defendant from using the name 'Findlay' in the conduct of his art gallery on East 57th Street.
- Walstein C. Findlay, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Walstein C. Findlay, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of one's own family name in a business constitute unfair competition that can be enjoined when it creates a likelihood of public confusion and diversion of trade from a long-established, nearby business operated by a family member under the same name?
Opinions:
Majority - Keating, J.
Yes. A person's use of their own name in business can be enjoined as unfair competition if it tends to produce confusion in the public mind and threatens to divert customers from a competitor. The court reasoned that David had spent over 25 years building goodwill and a reputation under the name 'Findlay's on 57th St.', giving the name a secondary meaning. The close proximity of Wally's gallery, dealing in similar art under the 'Findlay' name, inevitably led to public confusion and diversion of trade. The court held that fraud or intent to deceive are not necessary for a cause of action; the objective facts of unfair competition and injury to David's business are determinative. The injunction was narrowly tailored to East 57th Street to prevent the harm while causing as little injury as possible to Wally.
Dissenting - Burke, J.
No. Every person has an absolute right to use their own name in their own business, provided they do not resort to artifice or fraud to mislead the public. The dissent argued that the majority departed from the long-established rule of Meneely v. Meneely. It emphasized that the trial court found no evidence of deceit or fraudulent intent by Wally. The dissent contended that confusion resulting from the honest use of a similar name is not actionable and that the plaintiff failed to prove any actual financial damage. It concluded there was no valid basis for prohibiting the defendant from using his own name in his business.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant evolution in the law of unfair competition, moving away from the traditional requirement of showing fraud or deceit to enjoin the use of a personal name. The court prioritized the protection of an established business's goodwill and the prevention of public confusion over an individual's absolute right to use their name in commerce. This creates a precedent that in cases of direct competition in a confined geographic area, the likelihood of confusion can be sufficient grounds for an injunction, establishing a more flexible, effects-based test for unfair competition involving family names.
