Legal Opinion

Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. Reingold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 30, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.

The action is in equity to enjoin unfair competition in the use by defendants of (1) a hosiery box in imitation of plaintiff’s box; and (2) the words “ Gold Mark ” as a simulation of plaintiff’s trade-mark “ Gold Stripe.”

On appeal from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pendente lite, we reversed and granted partial relief by prohibiting the use by the defendants of the box against which complaint was made or of any box simulating those used by the plaintiff, in conjunction with the words “ Gold Mark.” (213 App. Div. 237.) The opinion in part reads: “ The conclusion that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Taendsticksfabriks Akticbolagat Vulcan v. MyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Gotham Silk Hosiery Co. v. ReingoldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Maritime Fish Products, Inc. v. World-Wide Fish Products, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Baltimore Bedding Corp. v. MosesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1943
  3. H. E. Allen Mfg. Co. v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  4. American Chain Co. v. Carr Chain Works, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Ramazzotti v. Banfi Products Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1966

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

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

Powered by the Exa API