Findlay v. Findlay, 18 N.Y.2d 12 (1966)

A person’s right to use their own name in business is not absolute and can be limited when such use tends to create confusion or diversion that harms the business of another, even without a showing of fraud or intent to deceive.

Summary

Two brothers, David and Walstein (Wally) Findlay, were involved in a family art business. David operated a gallery in New York City under the name “Findlay Galleries,” building a strong reputation. Wally, who operated a gallery in Chicago under a similar name, decided to open a gallery next door to David’s on East 57th Street, using the name “Wally Findlay Galleries.” David sought an injunction, arguing that Wally’s use of the name would cause confusion and divert customers. The court agreed, finding that Wally’s use of the “Findlay” name would inevitably lead to confusion, harming David’s established business and goodwill.

Facts

The Findlay art business was established in 1870 by the grandfather of David and Wally Findlay.
Their father expanded the business, with David managing a New York branch and Wally a Chicago branch.
In 1938, after a dispute, David sold the Chicago gallery to Wally, allowing him to use the name “Findlay Galleries, Inc.” in Chicago.
David continued to operate his gallery on East 57th Street in Manhattan, building a strong reputation.
In 1963, Wally purchased a building next door to David’s gallery and planned to open his own gallery under the name “Wally Findlay Galleries.”
David objected, claiming it would cause confusion and damage his business.

Procedural History

The trial court issued an injunction preventing Wally from using the name “Findlay” on East 57th Street.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Wally Findlay appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a person’s right to use their own name in business is absolute, or if it can be restricted when it causes confusion and harms the business of another.

Holding

No, because the right to use one’s own name in business is not unlimited and can be restricted when such use tends to produce confusion in the public mind and impairs the goodwill of an existing business.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that while individuals generally have the right to use their own name in business, this right is not absolute. It cannot be exercised in a way that injures the business of another or misleads the public. The court found that Wally’s use of the name “Findlay” next door to David’s established gallery would inevitably cause confusion. Customers looking for “Findlay’s on 57th St.” would likely enter Wally’s gallery by mistake, diverting business from David.

The court noted that the present trend of the law is to enjoin the use even of a family name when such use tends or threatens to produce confusion in the public mind. The court cited World’s Dispensary Med. Assn. v. Pierce, 203 N. Y. 419, 425 stating that, “The defendant has the right to use his name. The plaintiff has the right to have the defendant use it in such a way as will not injure his business or mislead the public. Where there is such a conflict of rights, it is the duty of the court so to regulate the use of his name by the defendant that, due protection to the plaintiff being afforded, there will be as little injury to him as possible.”

The court found that the objective facts of unfair competition and injury to plaintiff’s business were determinative, not the defendant’s subjective state of mind. The injunction was narrowly tailored to prevent the use of the name Findlay only on East 57th Street, minimizing the injury to Wally while protecting David’s business.