Legal Opinion
Armstrong Cork Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided August 28, 1916PublishedCited by 8 opinions
In Equity. Suit by the Armstrong Cork Company and others against the Ringwalt Linoleum Works. On motion to dismiss bill.
1Opinion of the Court
RELLSTAB, District Judge.
The Armstrong Cork Company, Thomas Potter & Sons Company, the George W. Blabon Company, *459and the American Linoleum Manufacturing Company filed their bill against the Ringwalt Linoleum Works, charging it with unfair competition in the manufacture and sale of a composition floor covering.
[1] As summarized in the brief of complainant’s counsel, the bill alleges that:
“Prior to December 19, 1808, Frederick Walton, was the inventor of a new floor covering or cloth, which was made from a composition of oxidized oil, ground cork, and wood flour impressed upon a suitable back.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Brown Chemical Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- American Washboard Co. v. Saginaw Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chamberlain v. Columbia Pictures Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co. v. Automotive Equipment Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1926
- Ambassador Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Sherman Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1922
- Armstrong Cork Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum WorksCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.