Samuels v. Spitzer
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill th equity, to enjoin the defendant from carrying on business under the name of the “Tannton Outlet Shoe Company,” or under any name containing the word “ Outlet,” and for an account. The defendant demurred to the bill for want of equity. In the Superior Court a decree was entered dismissing the bill with costs; and the plaintiffs appealed. The-facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
This case comes before us on the plaintiffs’ appeal from a decree sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ bill. The only question is whether, if the plaintiffs prove all their averments, the court can give them relief in equity.
They say that for many years they have been engaged in the business of selling ready made clothing, men’s furnishing goods, shoes, mackintoshes, and rubber goods, under the name and style of the u Manufacturers’ Outlet Company,” and have widely advertised this business in the State of Rhode Island and especially in the southeastern part of Massachusetts,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- American Waltham Watch Co. v. United States Watch Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Gillott v. . EsterbrookNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Sanders v. JacobMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by14 opinions
- George G. Fox Co. v. GlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Kaufman v. KaufmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Associated Perfumers, Inc. v. AndelmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Viano v. BaccigalupoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Regis v. H. A. Jaynes & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.