Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
R.G. EGAN EQUIPMENT, INC., Polymag Equipment, Ltd., d/b/a Polymag & Co., and Ronald G. Egan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POLYMAG TEK, INC., Frank Corrado, Gary Larsen, Ronald Sweet and James Fischer, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging causes of action for trade name infringement and unfair competition based on defendants' use of the name “Polymag”. Supreme Court erred upon renewal in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action, the only remaining cause of action in the complaint, and for summary judgment on the fifth counterclaim, declaring that plaintiffs' use of the name “Polymag” would constitute trade name infringement and permanently enjoining and restraining plaintiffs from using that name. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden, we conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether the Estate of Robert Donadio (Estate) abandoned the trade name (see generally, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted evidence that Eileen Donadio, the executrix of the Estate, had attempted to sell the trade name to defendants for $20,000, which is evidence that the Estate had not abandoned the trade name (see, Defiance Button Mach. Co. v. C & C Metal Prods. Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1059-1060, cert. denied 474 U.S. 844, 106 S.Ct. 131, 88 L.Ed.2d 108). Consequently, we modify the order by denying defendants' motion in its entirety, reinstating the fourth cause of action and vacating the fourth and fifth ordering paragraphs. In light of our determination, we do not address plaintiffs' remaining contentions.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 21, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)