Putnam Nail Co. v. Dulaney
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFF FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 3 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 90 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 514 September Term 1889, C. P. No. 3, in Equity.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFF FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 3 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 90 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 514 September Term 1889, C. P. No. 3, in Equity. On October 31, 1889, the Putnam Nail Company filed a bill in equity against B. F. Dulaney, making in substance, as after-wards amended, the following averments: That the plaintiff was a corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Massachusetts, and had been engaged for many years in the manufacture and sale of horse-shoe nails, and nails of its manufacture had acquired a reputation leading to large…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Chief Justice Paxson:
The court below sustained the defendant’s demurrer, and dismissed the plaintiff’s bill. It was evidently intended as a trade-mark bill. Yet the case lacks every element of a trademark. There is no trade-mark shown nor alleged which it is charged the defendant has pirated. On the contrary, the bill alleges that the plaintiff manufactures a peculiar kind of horseshoe nail. It is known to the trade as a bronzed nail, being covered with a coating of bronze. If is not alleged they are any better for being bronzed, but they are more popular, and sell more readily.…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Diamond Match Co. v. Saginaw Match Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1906
- Chas. H. Elliott Co. v. Skillkrafters, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Capewell Horse Nail Co. v. MooneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1909
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928
- Jessar Manufacturing Corp. v. BerlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.