Legal Opinion

Martin H. Smith Co. v. American Pharmaceutical Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 3, 1936PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

In this action to enjoin defendants from using the word “ Ergot-Apiol ” in advertising and selling their product, the following facts have been found:

During the year 1900 plaintiff obtained a trade-mark registration for its preparation under the name “ Ergoapiol ” and has since used that designation. The principal ingredients are ergot and apiol. Many other manufacturers prior to and subsequent to the year 1900 have sold preparations having the same principal ingredients under the names “ Ergot-Apiol Compound,” “ Ergot & Apiol Com.,” “ Ergot and Apiol Comp.,” “Apiol. and Ergotin Compound,”…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. The Upjohn Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. David Schwartz, Doing Business as Bryant Pharmaceutical Company, Defendant-Appellee-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  2. Miss Susan, Inc. v. Enterprise & Century Undergarment Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
  3. Precision Apparatus Co. v. Precision Meter Co.New York Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Collyrium, Inc. v. John Wyeth & Brother, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Swanson Mfg. Co. v. Feinberg-Henry Mfg. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943

3 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