## Facts

- Two brothers operated separate high-end art galleries after splitting interests in a longstanding family art business: David in New York City and Walstein C. (“Wally”) in Chicago (later also Palm Beach).
- In 1938 David sold Wally the Chicago gallery and permitted him to use “Findlay Galleries, Inc.” in Chicago; Wally later operated under the Findlay name through related entities.
- David’s New York gallery operated on East 57th Street and relied heavily on the “Findlay” reputation and goodwill associated with that location among sophisticated art buyers.
- Both galleries sold similar works (French impressionist and post-impressionist art) to a similar customer base.
- Wally purchased 17 East 57th Street to open a New York gallery next to David’s established location; David objected and warned of likely confusion.
- During renovation, Wally initially used “W.C.F. Galleries, Inc.” but then shifted signage, listings, and advertising to emphasize “Wally Findlay Galleries” and affiliation with “Findlay Galleries, Inc.”
- The record supported a finding that Wally’s proposed use of “Findlay” next door would likely cause confusion, divert customers, and injure David’s goodwill on 57th Street.
- The trial court issued an injunction barring use of “Wally Findlay Galleries,” “Findlay Galleries,” and other “Findlay” designations at 17 East 57th Street; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether operating a competing art gallery next door under the “Findlay” name constituted unfair competition because of likely public confusion and diversion of plaintiff’s goodwill.
2. Whether the general right to use one’s own surname in business may be restricted when its use is likely to mislead the public and appropriate another’s established goodwill.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment sustaining injunctive relief.
- The court held Wally could be restrained from using “Findlay” to operate a gallery at 17 East 57th Street due to likely confusion and injury to David’s goodwill.
- The court concluded that proof of actual fraud or intentional deception was not required; likelihood of confusion and diversion sufficed.
- The remedy was treated as equitable and subject to tailoring, leaving Wally practical options to operate under a clearly different name or at a different location.

## Legal Principles

- A person may generally use their own surname in business, but that use may be enjoined when it is likely to confuse the public or injure another’s established goodwill.
- In unfair competition claims involving personal names, deliberate fraud need not be shown; probable confusion and diversion of trade can justify injunctive relief.
- Physical proximity, similarity of goods/services, and a plaintiff’s localized goodwill can make surname use by a competitor actionable, even where both parties share the same name.
- Injunctions in name-use disputes should be narrowly framed to prevent confusion while minimizing unnecessary restraint on the defendant’s business activity.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an injunction preventing Wally from using “Findlay” for a competing gallery next door to David’s established East 57th Street gallery, holding that the surname privilege yields where likely confusion would divert customers and appropriate the plaintiff’s locally developed goodwill.


David B. Findlay, Inc. v. Findlay, 18 N.Y.2d 12, 218 N.E.2d 531 (N.Y. 1966)