
    Foster v. Webster Piano Co.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    
    February 11, 1891.)
    Trade-Mark—Infringement—Injunction Pendente Lite.
    The trade-mark of plaintiff, a piano manufacturer, was “Weber, New York.” Meld,, that an injunction restraining defendant pendente lite from putting on its pianos the words “Webster, New York, ” was rightly refused, there being nothing to show any intention by defendant to sell its pianos as the pianos made by plaintiff, or that the use of the word “Webster” had deceived any one.
    Appeal from special term, New York county. .
    Action by William Foster, as substituted trustee, etc., of the last will and testament of Albert Weber, deceased, against the Webster Piano Company, to restrain an infringement of the plaintiff’s trade-mark. The plaintiff’s trade-mark was “Weber, New York.” The defendant was' putting on its piano the words “Webster, New York.” Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pendente lite was denied, and the following opinion was rendered by the court: “Ingraham, J. The plaintiff shows no right to the use of the word * Webster,’ and it is clear that there was no intention to sell the defendant’s pianos as the pianos manufactured by the plaintiff. It is not shown that the use of the words ‘ Webster Pianos ’ has deceived any one, and I do not think it is likely to deceive any one. Motion for an injunction denied.” From the order denying his motion the plaintiff appeals.
    Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels and O’Brien, JJ.
    
      
      Sutherland Tenney, for appellant. Nichols & Bacon, (A. S. Bacon, of counsel,) for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We think the order appealed from should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court below. ' Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.  