Legal Opinion

Mississippi Wire Glass Co. v. Continuous Glass Press Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 18, 1911PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Hearing on pleadings and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

Stevens, V. C.

The complainant seeks to obtain an injunction against the defendant to restrain it, first, from using the term “wire glass” in *278connection with its manufacture; second, from using, manufacturing or selling glass plates with wire mesh imbedded therein, identical with or like that manufactured and sold by complainant; third, from doing any act or using any artifice calculated to induce the belief that any glass plates with wire mesh imbedded therein and not marketed by complainant are complainant’s.

Wire glass is a comparatively new product. It is useful because it prevents the…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cridlebaugh v. RudolphCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
  2. Squeezit Corp. v. Plastic Dispensers, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
  3. French American, Etc., Co. v. Park Plastics Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
  4. Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trimming Co. v. F. W. Devoe & C. T. Reynolds Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1916
  5. Ferber Corp. v. NORTHERN INDUS. PRODUCTS, INC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API