
    (41 Misc. Rep. 127.)
    LEGAL AID SOC. v. CO-OPERATIVE LEGAL AID SOC. et al.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    June, 1903.)
    1. Corporations — Names—Similarity—Injunction.
    Plaintiff corporation was organized and known as “The Legal Aid; Society,” and under such name for several years had rendered legal aid to persons needing and deserving the same. Thereafter defendant corporation was organized and incorporated under the name of “The Cooperative Legal Aid Society.” Helé, that defendant’s name was so-similar to that of plaintiff that it was calculated to deceive the public,, and hence plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining defendant, from using the same.
    Action by the Legal Aid Society against the Co-operative Legal'. Aid Society and others. Motion for an injunction pendente lite tG'restrain defendants’ use of another’s name.
    Motion granted.
    Dulon & Roe (Rudolf Dulon, of counsel), for the motion.
    Robert H. Ernest, opposed.
   GIEGERICH, J.

The plaintiff is an organization incorporated for the purpose of rendering legal aid to persons needing and deserving; such aid. Its expenses are largely defrayed by contributions of its-members and other benevolent persons. During the 27 years of its existence it has handled 146,798 cases at an expense to itself of $148,-052, and has recovered over $1,000,000 for its clients. During the year 1902 it handled over 15,000 cases at an expense of over $17,000., and recovered for its clients over $53,000. Its name and the benevolent character of its work have become well known throughout the community. In April, 1903, the defendant was incorporated under the name “The Co-operative Legal Aid Society,” and is soliciting business under that name in a room at 132 Nassau street, in this city. An example of its activities is shown in a communication attached to the moving affidavits, which is printed upon its stationery and directed to-“Mr. Mock Hung, Bellevue Hospital,” offering to take his case ón a contingency, and to send a representative to call upon him if he should be unable to come to its officq. The defendant denies that it had any knowledge at the time of its incorporation of the name of the plaintiff, and insists that there are various other organizations in this city o£ a similar name, such as the “People’s Legal Aid Society,” and the “New York and Brooklyn Legal Aid Society.” The replying affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff state that the former society is conducted by persons who obtain personal injury cases by means of circulars and the personal solicitation of their agents, and that a number of such clients have afterward come to the plaintiff for advice, and stated that they had made agreements with such persons to conduct their cases for not less than 25 per cent, of the amount recovered. It is also stated that that society has discontinued business. In the replying affidavits it is further explained that the “New York and Brooklyn Legal Aid Society” is a name adopted by an individual lawyer within the last few months for the purpose of getting business, and that he has been warned to discontinue the use of that name, or proceedings would be taken against him. Without going further into the facts, it is enough to state my conclusion that the motion for a temporary injunction should be granted. There is a grave doubt in my mind whether the name is properly descriptive of the business of the defendant, as the same is disclosed in the papers submitted. That it is calculated to deceive and will deceive large numbers of persons who would carry their business to it upon the strength of the plaintiff’s reputation, and in the belief that they wére dealing with the plaintiff, there can be no doubt. The class of persons to whom the plaintiff has extended its assistance is such that they are more likely to be deceived by the similarity of name than would persons of wider experience and information.

The motion should be granted, with $10 costs, provided the plaintiff, within 10 days after service of notice of entry of the order hereon, which is to be entered on 2 days’ notice of settlement, give an undertaking, in a sum to be .specified in such order, to the effect that it -will pay to the defendant such damages as the latter may sustain by reason of the injunction if the court finally decides that it was not entitled thereto.

Ordered accordingly.  