Legal Opinion
Hoover Co. v. Exchange Vacuum Cleaner Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 28, 1932PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PATTERSON, District Judge.
The motion is to punish the defendant, Exchange Vacuum Cleaner Company, Ine., and one Dick for contempt, in that they have violated an injunction. It appears that in 1929 the plaintiff brought suit against the Exchange Company for violation of its trademark “Hoover” on vacuum cleaners. A final decree in the plaintiff’s favor was granted on March 16,1931, and a writ of injunction followed, enjoining the Exchange Company, its officers and agents, from selling vacuum cleaners or parts thereof bearing the plaintiff’s trade-mark. Dick was then president of the Exchange…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Alemite Mfg. Corporation v. StaffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Dangler v. Imperial MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1926
- Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. American Neon Light CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Frank F. Smith Metal Window Hardware Co. v. YatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Dadirrian v. GullianU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Havens v. JamesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2023
- Cassidy v. Puett Electrical Starting Gate Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
- A. S. Boyle Co. v. Siegel Hardware & Paint Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1938
- Aluminum Colors Inc. v. Empire Plating Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1933
- Shipping Room Suppliers, Inc. v. Schoenlaub, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1951