## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned and operated Maxim’s, a Paris restaurant established in 1893 with international fame and a reputation known to travelers and readers in New York and the United States.
- Plaintiffs cultivated recognition in the United States through trademark registration for certain goods/services and through promotional and merchandising activities using the “Maxim’s” name.
- Defendants opened a restaurant in New York City and used “Maxim’s” prominently as a restaurant name or identifier.
- Defendants’ presentation included stylized lettering and decor similar to what patrons associated with Maxim’s of Paris.
- Plaintiffs did not operate a physical restaurant in New York, but alleged defendants’ use was intended to suggest affiliation with the Paris establishment and to appropriate plaintiffs’ goodwill.

## Issues

1. Whether New York unfair competition law permits a foreign owner of a famous restaurant name, without a local restaurant location, to enjoin a New York restaurant’s use of that name and similar indicia when the name has secondary meaning among New York consumers.
2. Whether defendants’ adoption of the “Maxim’s” name and related presentation created a likelihood of confusion as to sponsorship, affiliation, or connection sufficient for injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court issued a permanent injunction barring defendants from using “Maxim’s” (and confusingly similar indicia) in connection with their New York restaurant.
- The court found “Maxim’s” had acquired secondary meaning in New York identifying plaintiffs’ Paris establishment.
- The court concluded defendants’ use was calculated to trade on plaintiffs’ reputation and likely to mislead the public into believing an association with Maxim’s of Paris.
- The court held plaintiffs’ lack of a New York restaurant did not bar relief where plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation extended into New York.

## Legal Principles

- New York unfair competition protects business goodwill and reputation as a property interest against misappropriation and passing off.
- A famous foreign business may obtain injunctive relief in New York even without a local outlet if the name has secondary meaning among relevant New York consumers.
- Likelihood of confusion includes mistaken beliefs about affiliation, sponsorship, or connection, not only confusion between competing sellers in the same local market.
- Deliberate adoption of a well-known name and associated trade dress-like features supports an inference of intent to deceive and supports equitable relief.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows no material factual dispute about the plaintiff’s protectable goodwill, the defendant’s use, and the likelihood of deception.

## Conclusion

The court permanently enjoined defendants’ use of “Maxim’s” for a New York restaurant, holding that New York unfair competition law protects the goodwill of a famous foreign establishment with secondary meaning in New York against conduct likely to mislead diners into believing a false affiliation.


Vaudable v. Montmartre, Inc., 193 N.Y.S.2d 332 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1959)