Legal Opinion

Russ Stonier, Inc. v. Droz Wood Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1971No. Civ. A. No. 70-2551PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

HAROLD K. WOOD, District Judge.

Plaintiff has moved to compel answers to interrogatories pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In plaintiff’s cause of action he alleges that defendants manufactured and sold decorative wooden spindles or turnings identical to those manufactured and sold by plaintiff. The complaint further alleges that defendants’ product has been commingled with plaintiff’s and sold in stores from cartons bearing plaintiff’s trademark.

Defendants have objected to plaintiff’s interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11 which ask defendants to identify…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. An Article of Drug Consisting of 30 Individually Cartoned JarsDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1967
  2. Struthers Scientific & International Corp. v. General Foods Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1968
  3. Louis Weinberg Associates, Inc. v. Monte Christi Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Australian Gold, Inc. v. HatfieldCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
  3. Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2007
  4. Reed v. BennettDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2000
  5. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc. v. Furniture USA, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API