Legal Opinion
Barton v. Rex-Oil Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 16, 1923PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GIBSON, District Judge.
The plaintiffs herein seek to enjoin the defendant company—
“from using in connection with the manufacture and offering for sale or sale of any polish or dressing for leather goods or goods of substantially the same descriptive properties plaintiffs’ trade-mark ‘Dyanshine,’ or the colorable imitation, ‘Dye and Shine,’ or any other colorable imitation thereof, and further from using any name or names, device, artifice, or contrivance calculated to induce the belief that the defendant’s product is the plaintiffs.’ ”
The facts, as they have been made to appear to the court,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Ungles-Hoggette Mfg. Co. v. Farmers' Hog & Cattle Powder Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wm. R. Warner & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921
3Cited by8 opinions
- Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc. v. Winchester Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Franklin Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Fashionit Sweater Mills, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1923
- Barton v. Rex-Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
- A. & H. Transportation, Inc. v. Save Way Stations, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
- Jackson Brewing Co. v. José B. López, Sucrs., Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1937
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.