TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Schweizerishe Kaeseunion Bern v. Saul Starck, Inc.

Schweizerishe Kaeseunion Bern v. Saul Starck, Inc., 162 Misc. 485 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
February 18, 1937
Judges
Steinbrink
Citations
162 Misc. 485293 N.Y.S. 8161937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1540

Opinion of the Court — Steinbrink

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Steinbrink, J.

The plaintiff association, which manufactures in Switzerland most of the Swiss cheese consumed in this country, seeks to restrain the defendant from advertising and offering for sale as genuine imported Swiss cheese, cheese manufactured in Denmark. Of all the Swiss cheese imported into this country, approximately ninety per cent comes from Switzerland. The remainder comes from other European countries and, like domestic Swiss cheese, is inferior in quality to the Swiss cheese made in Switzerland and cheaper in price. Over a long period of time the words “ genuine imported Swiss cheese ” have acquired a secondary meaning in the sense that they are associated in the minds of the public with a special type and quality of cheese imported from Switzerland. While the defendant, in offering for sale “ genuine imported extra fine quality Swiss cheese ” expresses a literal truth, it nevertheless conveys to the public the impression that the cheese offered is imported from Switzerland. - By quoting a price slightly higher than that quoted for domestic Swiss cheese and considerably lower than that for which Swiss cheese imported from Switzerland is generally sold, the defendant obviously intends to attract the public to what seems to be a good bargain. The result is not alone a diversion of purchasing power away from the Swiss cheese imported from Switzerland, but likewise an impairment of *486 the reputation enjoyed by manufacturers of such cheese. This is the essence of unfair competition — deception practiced on the public to the detriment of those whose skill and energy have produced in their product a standard of quality found desirable by the consuming public. There will be judgment for the plaintiff for the relief requested in the complaint. Settle judgment accordingly on notice.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1947: 11959: 11982: 119472026peak 1947 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. California Apparel Creators v. Wieder of California, Inc.162 F.2d 893 (2d Cir. 1947)
  2. In re Nantucket Inc.677 F.2d 95 (C.C.P.A. 1982) · Concurrence
  3. Iannarelli v. Carvel Stores of New York, Inc.18 Misc. 2d 930 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1959)

Most recent

  1. In re Nantucket Inc.677 F.2d 95 (C.C.P.A. 1982) · Concurrence
  2. Iannarelli v. Carvel Stores of New York, Inc.18 Misc. 2d 930 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1959)
  3. California Apparel Creators v. Wieder of California, Inc.162 F.2d 893 (2d Cir. 1947)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list