Legal Opinion

Philadelphia Novelty Manuf'g Co. v. Rouss

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Decided December 9, 1889PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. FinzerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Falkinburg v. LucyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Fairbanks v. JacobusU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1877
  4. Moorman v. HogeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1871

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Taylor v. BostickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924
  2. Pacific Coast Condensed Milk Co. v. Frye & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
  3. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Macomber & Whyte Rope Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1905
  4. Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka Chemical & Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin · 1895
  5. Seybold Baking Co. v. Derst Baking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1943

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