Legal Opinion
Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 26, 1935PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HULBERT, District Judge.
Motion for an injunction pendente lite.
This action was commenced January 30, 1934.
The facts developed by this litigation were stated at length by Judge Woolsey on motions to strike out certain defenses and a counterclaim (D. C.) 10 F. Supp. 289, 294. He said: “The defendant asserts the right of using the name chosen for it by its incorporators and denies any confusion of goods. Those issues remain to be decided hereafter.”
The court is now called upon to do so.
The prayer of the bill of complaint is that the use of the trade-names and trademarks “The Mumm Champagne &…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Stix, Baer & Fuller Dry Goods Co. v. American Piano Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
- Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
3Cited by4 opinions
- Société Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- GH Mumm Champagne v. Eastern Wine CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Cojocaru v. City University of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
- Cojocaru v. City University of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020