Legal Opinion

Philip A. Singer Bro. v. A. Hollander Son

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided April 5, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The bill sets up that the complainant for ten years past has engaged in dyeing and dressing furs, and has built up a valuable good will and has and uses a registered trademark, known in the trade, to identify its fur dressing and dyeing, and that it has another trade-mark, not exactly like the registered one, which is also known in the industry and used to identify skins dyed and treated by it. That on August 6th, 1928, it gave the defendant permission to use its trade-marks on marmot (ground hog) skins dyed by the defendant, by this letter:

"NEWARK, N.J., August 6, 1928. A Hollander Son,…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Singer v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
  2. Maihack v. MehlNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
  3. Greenberg v. GreenbergNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  4. Singer v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1952
  5. Fishman v. FishmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API