Legal Opinion
Farbenfabriken Bayer A.G. v. Sterling Drug, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided August 9, 1962No. 13807PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STALEY, Circuit Judge.
This is a civil action commenced under the antitrust laws, § 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1, and §§ 4 and 6 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§15 and 26. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant has without right asserted trademark rights in the word “Bayer” and the Bayer Cross, as a means of suppressing competition, and that such assertion constitutes a violation of the antitrust laws. Plaintiff requested in-junctive relief and treble damages. The essence of the prayer for injunctive relief was that defendant be directed to give all necessary…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Farbenfabriken Bayer, A.G. v. Sterling Drug, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1957
- Coca-Cola Co. v. J. G. Butler & SonsDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1916
- Paul Ginsburg v. John D. Black, 1Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1956
- Farbenfabriken Bayer, A. G. v. Sterling Drug Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1961
- Koppel Industrial Car & Equipment Co. v. Orenstein & Koppel AktiengesellschaftCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Dayco Corporation v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Dayco Corporation v. Firestone Tire & Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
- Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AGCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Harold Friedman Inc. v. Thorofare Markets Inc. And Union Real Estate CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Cito v. Bridgewater Township Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- The Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation, the Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.