## Facts

- Oneida manufactured and sold a silver-plated flatware pattern marketed as “Coronation,” which achieved strong market recognition.
- National Silver introduced a competing pattern called “Princess Royal,” which Oneida alleged was intentionally made to resemble Coronation in overall appearance.
- Oneida alleged the similarity caused consumer source confusion, harming sales, profits, and goodwill by leading buyers to attribute Princess Royal to Oneida.
- To show confusion, Oneida sponsored a consumer survey:
  - Five interviewers canvassed middle-class neighborhoods and interviewed housewives as typical purchasers.
  - Respondents were shown the Princess Royal pattern and asked who they believed made it.
  - Roughly one-third could not identify a source; among those who expressed an opinion, nearly all attributed the pattern to Oneida.
- Oneida sought injunctive relief to stop National Silver from manufacturing and selling the Princess Royal pattern.

## Issues

1. Whether National Silver’s sale of a flatware pattern allegedly resembling Oneida’s pattern constituted unfair competition based on likely consumer confusion as to source.
2. Whether a privately commissioned consumer survey conducted outside court was admissible and, if admitted, what evidentiary weight it could carry on likely confusion.

## Decision

- The court treated the consumer survey as competent evidence of consumer perception and likely confusion.
- The court found the survey results supported Oneida’s position that ordinary purchasers were likely to attribute National Silver’s pattern to Oneida.
- The court concluded that survey evidence, together with similarity in appearance and market context, could support injunctive relief in an unfair-competition claim.

## Legal Principles

- Unfair competition may be established by proof that a defendant’s product presentation is likely to mislead ordinary purchasers into believing the goods originate with, or are sponsored by, the plaintiff.
- Evidence of actual or likely consumer perception is central to source-confusion claims.
- Consumer surveys can be admissible and probative on confusion where the surveyed group approximates the relevant purchasing public and the method and questioning are sufficiently reliable; methodological concerns generally affect weight rather than admissibility.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that a properly conducted consumer survey of likely purchasers may be admitted and relied upon to show likely source confusion in an unfair-competition case involving similar product designs, and it treated the survey results as substantial support for injunctive relief against confusing imitation.


Oneida v. Nat'l Silver Co., 25 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)