Legal Opinion
Cardinal v. Taylor
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 31, 1939PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.
This is a bill to restrain the defendant from using the name “Fall River and New Bedford Express” in connection with a business carried on by him.
Facts found by the master, in so far as it is necessary to state them in order to show the grounds of this decision, *221are these: In October, 1930, the plaintiff owned and carried on an express business between Boston and Fall River, with connections to New Bedford, the Boston terminal being at 153 Albany Street. The name “Fall River and New Bed-ford Express Company” under which the business was conducted had acquired a secondary meaning among…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chadwick v. CovellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Hoxie v. ChaneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- C. A. Briggs Co. v. National Wafer Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Nelson v. J. H. Winchell & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Royle v. Worcester Buick Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- E. F. Prichard Co. v. Consumers Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Blair's Foodland Inc. v. Shuman's Foodland, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Mascaro v. Snelling & Snelling of Baltimore, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
- Goodman v. Motor Products Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1956
- Staples Coal Co. v. City Fuel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.