276-8 Pizza Corp. v. Free276-8 Pizza Corp. v. Free
This is an action for trademark dilution and infringement resulting from defendant’s use of plaintiff’s trade name, “John’s Pizzeria,” and related marks. Intervenor-respondent, who is plaintiff’s co-president and majority shareholder, was not consulted about, and did not authorize, the lawsuit before it was brought. He objects to it on the ground that it has the potential to cause irreparable harm to the corporation’s reputation and goodwill and because he believes it is in the corporation’s best interests to permit defendant to stay in business and use the “John’s Pizzeria” name. As respondent holds 60% of the corporation’s voting shares, the lawsuit was impermissibly brought without his authorization (see
Respondent has also established that he should be permitted to intervene pursuant to
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate its entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to
Furthermore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had a likelihood of success on the merits, that it would sustain irreparable injury absent the grant of injunctive relief, and that the equities balanced in its favor (see Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839 [2005]; Matter of Fireman’s Assn. of State of N.Y. v French Am. School of N.Y., 41 AD3d 925 [3d Dept 2007]). Plaintiff’s shareholders’ agreement explicitly provides that Vittoria (the majority shareholder) and “Castellotti”—which is defined to include defendant Lisa Free also known as Castellotti—“shall not authorize any person, firm or organization in which they shall not be owners to permit the use of the corporate assumed name without the consent of the Board of Directors in writing.” Interpreted according to its plain meaning, the agreement permits defendant to use the “John’s Pizzeria” trade name in the operation of her restaurants without written authorization from plaintiff’s board. Defendant and Vittoria also urge that plaintiff was not authorized to commence the action. In light of the parties’ long history of shared use of the trade name, plaintiff failed to demonstrate either potential irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief or that the balance of equities weighs in its favor.
Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.