Legal Opinion
Everlasting Valve Co. v. Schiller
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 8, 1927No. 3251PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
The conclusion reached is that the bill should be dismissed.
Discussion.
The maker of anything for which there is a trade demand always resents the intrusion of a competitor upon his special field. The existence of the trade opportunity just as surely invites competition. Usually there is some special quality in the manufactured product which appeals to purchasers. Upon this the manufacturer seizes and seeks to create a monopoly in what possesses this quality by adopting a slogan or name which expresses the thought of the possession of the desired quality, and then…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. WardCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1907
- Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Globe Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Ludlow Valve Mfg. Co. v. Pittsburgh Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1908
- In re SchapiroDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1923
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dresser Industries, Inc., a Corporation v. Heraeus Engelhard Vacuum, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Carlisle Bottling WorksDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1929
- Engineered Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Applied Mechanical Technology, Inc.District Court, M.D. Louisiana · 1984
- Redken Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol IncorporatedDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1972
- LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.