Legal Opinion
Arthur Murray, Inc. v. Horst
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided March 3, 1953No. Civ. A. 52-195PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FORD, District Judge.
The plaintiff in its amended complaint asks for a judgment declaring a 1946 license agreement, marked “C” in the complaint, between Arthur and Kathryn Murray, co-partners, and the defendant be declared null and void. The agreement was assigned to plaintiff corporation December 16, 1946. Plaintiff also prays for an injunction restraining defendant from using the trademark “Arthur Murray” in his dancing enterprises. The background leading up to the filing by defendant of his motion to dismiss is set forth in defendant’s brief, pp. 2 and 3.
In the amended complaint the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Celanese Corp. of AmericaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Associated Perfumers, Inc. v. AndelmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Broeg v. DuchaineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bernard Susser v. Carvel Corporation, Carvel Dari-Freeze Stores, Inc., Carvel Stores Realty Corporation, and Eight Other CasesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- Weight Watchers of Quebec Ltd. v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1975
- Susser v. Carvel CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Huber Baking Company v. Stroehmann Brothers Company and Quality Bakers of America Cooperative, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Nichols v. Arthur Murray, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.