Philadelphia Novelty Manuf'g Co. v. Rouss
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity.
1Opinion of the CourtCoxe, J.
This is an action for the infringement of a trade-mark. The ■bill alleges that the complainant is engaged in manufacturing and selling hair-crimpers which are put up in packages of 12, and wrapped with a tan-colored paper, which is held in place by a rubber band. . Twelve of these packages are placed in a red pasteboard box, on the cover of which is a white label,- with a black border, “and, as a distinctive trademark, in the center, the head of a woman, with hair curled, together with the words, ‘Madam Louie, Common-Sense Hair-Crimper.’” The defenses are — First, that the complainant is not…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. FinzerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Falkinburg v. LucyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Fairbanks v. JacobusU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1877
- Moorman v. HogeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1871
3Cited by8 opinions
- Taylor v. BostickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924
- Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Co. v. Frye & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
- A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Macomber & Whyte Rope Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1905
- Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical & Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin · 1895
- Seybold Baking Co. v. Derst Baking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.