## Facts

- Plaintiffs were Paris couture houses whose business relied on original, exclusive apparel designs and the goodwill associated with names and marks including “Christian Dior” and “Dior.”
- Plaintiffs debuted new collections at limited, private showings in Paris, conditioning access on understandings that attendees would not sketch, copy, or disclose the designs before authorized release.
- Defendants operated a New York “sketch service” that quickly produced and sold to subscribers sketches allegedly reproducing plaintiffs’ newly shown designs.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants obtained the designs through a conspiracy with show attendees who breached confidentiality obligations, enabling defendants to distribute reproductions to the dress trade.
- Plaintiffs claimed the service accelerated “piracy of style,” eroding exclusivity and time-sensitive market value, and constituted unfair competition and infringement of plaintiffs’ registered names and trademarks.
- Defendant Milton moved to dismiss the amended complaint for legal insufficiency and sought, in the alternative, dismissal/striking relief based on alleged pleading defects and asserted irrelevance or conclusory allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a cause of action for unfair competition/misappropriation where fashion designs were disclosed to a limited audience under confidentiality restrictions and were allegedly obtained and exploited through breach of that confidentiality and conspiracy.
2. Whether the amended complaint failed to satisfy pleading requirements, including separate statement and numbering of causes of action and compliance with New York pleading rules.
3. Whether challenged allegations should be stricken as irrelevant, redundant, conclusory, or evidentiary at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, holding the pleadings sufficient to allege unfair competition/misappropriation based on wrongful acquisition and commercial exploitation of confidentially disclosed designs.
- The court rejected objections that the amended complaint failed to comply with prior directions to separately state claims or with applicable pleading requirements.
- The court largely denied the request to strike paragraphs, treating the challenged allegations as permissible factual background or not prejudicial on a motion addressed to legal sufficiency.

## Legal Principles

- New York unfair competition law may protect intangible business values, including the product of skill, labor, and investment, from commercial misappropriation in equity.
- A claim is stated where a plaintiff alleges: (a) limited disclosure of valuable designs under express or implied confidentiality restrictions; (b) defendant’s knowing acquisition through breach of confidence or inducement/conspiracy; and (c) exploitation in competition that harms the plaintiff’s time-sensitive commercial advantage and goodwill.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court tests legal sufficiency, accepts pleaded facts as true, and does not resolve factual disputes about acquisition, similarity, or the extent of competitive harm.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed, holding that allegations of copying couture designs obtained through breach of confidential access restrictions and then sold to the trade could constitute actionable unfair competition/misappropriation under New York law, and that the amended complaint was adequately pleaded.


Christian Dior, Société a responsabilité limitée v. Milton, 155 N.Y.S.2d 443 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1956)