Legal Opinion
Consolidated Home Specialties Co. v. Plotkin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided September 30, 1947No. Appeal, 169PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Maxey,
The first question in this case is whether or not the defendant has unlawfully appropriated a trade name. A further question is whether the complainant is estopped from obtaining equitable redress on the grounds of its acquiescence.
Complainant, a Pennsylvania corporation, organized in 1938 for the purpose of selling home furnishings at retail on the installment plan by house to house solicitation, took over the business of the Pittsburgh division of the Consolidated Home Furnishing Company, a corporation registered in this Commonwealth in 1926 to engage in a…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Holmes, Booth & Atwood Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- Falcucci Name CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- American Clay Manufacturing Co. v. American Clay Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- University of Pittsburgh, a Non Profit Corporation v. Champion Products Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Du Bois Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Law v. MacKieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Goebel Brewing Co. v. Esslingers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Pennsylyania Life Insurance v. Pennsylvania National Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.