Hennessy v. Braunschweiger & Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
On Demurrer to Bill. This is a suit for the infringement of a trade-mark. The bill of complaint alleges: That complainants are citizens of the republic of France. That the respondent is a California corporation, having its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
On Demurrer to Bill. This is a suit for the infringement of a trade-mark. The bill of complaint alleges: That complainants are citizens of the republic of France. That the respondent is a California corporation, having its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco. That complainants are co-partners under the firm name of James Hennessy & Co., and have been, and now are, exporters, bottlers, and vendors of a cordial or liquor known as “Hennessy Brandy,” which, for upward of 30 years, they have produced, bottled, and sold. “That said brandy, when bottled by these…
1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge
(orally). Is tbe complaint defective because it does not aver that the complainants and tbe respondent “are now, or ever were, engaged in commerce witb foreign nations or witb Indian tribes”? This is tbe most important question presented by tbe demurrer. It was argued by the complainants’ counsel that tbe averments that they “are exporters,” and that tbe brandy “has become widely known in tbe community and throughout the world, * * * and has commanded * * * an extensive sale throughout tbe United States and Europe,” are sufficient, by inference, at least, to show that complainants “were…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. SteffensSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- South Carolina v. SeymourSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Kohler Manuf'g Co. v. BeeshoreCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1893
- Richter v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1893
- Ryder v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hennessy v. HerrmannU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan · 1898
- L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. Storm Waterproofing Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1927