Legal Opinion

Block v. Jung Arch Brace Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided July 2, 1924No. 4022PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The situation is fully stated in Judge Hickenlooper’s opinion, the decisive portion of which we quote below:

“This cause comes for hearing upon a motion for preliminary injunction against the use by the defendant of the words ‘Wonder’ and ‘Miracle’ upon elastic arch supports, as infringing the plaintiffs’. registered trade-mark ‘Wizard.’ While the goods of both plaintiffs and defendant serve somewhat the same purposes, that of supporting or strengthening the fallen arch in the foot of the wearer, they are of very different type, material, and appearance. The plaintiffs’ support consists of an…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Florence Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
  3. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Tennessee Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. Coats v. Merrick Thread Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  5. National Biscuit Co. v. BakerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1899

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gold Dust Corporation v. HoffenbergCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
  2. Mid South Building Supply of Maryland, Inc. v. Guardian Door & Window, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  3. Vortex Mfg. Co. v. Ply-Rite Contracting Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1929
  4. Moline Pressed Steel Co. v. Dayton Toy & Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
  5. Augstein v. SaksDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API