Legal Opinion

Artmoore Co. v. Dayless Mfg. Co.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided July 2, 1951No. 50PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

LA BUY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction to restrain defendants from manufacturing and selling a mop sold under the trade-mark Kleen-Rite which is alleged to infringe on plaintiffs’ mop manufactured and sold under the trade-mark New Art. As was stated in Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Casco Products Corporation, 7 Cir., 1937, 89 F.2d 916, 921 :

“ * * * This court in Standard Elevator v. Crane Elevator Co., 7 Cir., 56 F. 718, 719, said:
“ ‘The purpose of the interlocutory writ is not to conclude the question of right, but to protect against material injury…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1893
  3. Bowers v. E. J. Rose Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
  4. Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Casco Products CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1937
  5. Ganter v. Unit Venetian Blind Supply Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1949

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Signode Corporation v. Weld-Loc Systems, Inc. And Strapex AgCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API