Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CRAZY EDDIE, INC. v. LOIS PITTS GERSHON

December 19, 1984

CRAZY EDDIE, INC., Plaintiff, v LOIS PITTS GERSHON, INC., LAFAYETTE STORES, CIRCUIT CITY, STORES, INC., et al., Defendants.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: LOWE

LOWE, D.J.:

Plaintiff by order to show cause, seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO") from this Court restraining the defendants *fn1" from distributing, televising, displaying or otherwise publicizing certain T.V. commercials on behalf of defendant Lafayette Stores, Circuit City Stores, Inc., hereinafter ("Lafayette") which mention the trade name Crazy Eddie in a derogatory or disparaging manner.

 Plaintiff is the owner of a registered trademark for the service mark Crazy Eddie as applied to retail and distributorship services in the field of audio and video electronic equipment. *fn2"

 Plaintiff contends that the commercials use the service mark and trade name CRAZY EDDIE to such an extent that it dominates the use by defendant of its trade name Lafayette and constitutes trademark infringement, false description, false designation of origin, and false and confusing advertising. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant's TV commercials include a number of statements which are false, misleading, disparaging, derogatory, and defamatory, and which constitute trade disparagement and unfair competition.

 Plaintiff alleges a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (Section 32(1)(a) of the Lanham Act) for trademark infringement, 15, U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Section 43a of the Lanham Act) for false description and false designation of origin; trade disparagement and unfair competition under the common law of New York and New Jersey and trademark dilution under Section 368-d of the New York General Business Law. N.Y.G.B.L. § 368-d (McKinney 1984).

 Plaintiff claims that the commercials *fn3" create a reasonable likelihood that purchasers will be confused as to their sponsorship. More particularly plaintiff alleges that the commercial entitled "The Confessions of Crazy Eddie" (Ex. 4A) shows a person, who looks like Crazy Eddie, is dressed like him and uses his mannerisms, sitting in a confessional booth making derogratory statements concerning Crazy Eddie's business practices.

 A. Confessions of Crazy Eddie;

 B. Why Haggle;

 C. World's Greatest Haggler;

 D. King of Hagglers;

 E. The Santa Ad;

 F. Great Hagglers of History;

 G. Worst Hagglers of History;

 H. Clearance Sale;

 I. President's Day ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.