Legal Opinion

Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 5, 1938No. 51PublishedCited by 414 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Reed

The Nu-Enamel Corporation of Illinois filed its bill of complaint in a District Court of the United States in Illinois to enjoin the Armstrong Paint and Varnish Works, a corporation of the same State, from using in the sale of paints, varnishes and similar goods the words “Nu-Beauty Enamel” or any name including the words “Nu-Enamel” or other colorable imitation of plaintiff’s registered trade-mark Nu-Enamel or otherwise infringing it; to require an accounting of profits, and to recover treble damages. Pending the litigation, the plaintiff sold its assets to the other respondent, Nu-Enamel…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Sorrells v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  4. Crooks v. HarrelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  5. Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901

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

3Cited by414 opinions

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Hagans v. LavineSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  5. Abercrombie & Fitch Company v. Hunting World, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976

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

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

Powered by the Exa API