Legal Opinion

Gould Engineering Co. v. Goebel

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 16, 1946PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.

The defendants Robert J. Goebel and Gould Burner and Appliance Company, which was formed by Goebel, have appealed from a final decree enjoining them against selling oil burners, not made by the plaintiff, under the name of Gould; against using in the oil burner business the name of Gould; against leading the public to believe that they are connected with the plaintiff or deal in the plaintiff’s products; and against using a symbol, consisting of a picture of an oil burner within the capital letter G, which symbol has been used by the plaintiff and has come to signify that goods are the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Hoxie v. ChaneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
  3. Nelson v. J. H. Winchell & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  4. Blair's Foodland Inc. v. Shuman's Foodland, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  5. Canadian Club Beverage Co. v. Canadian Club Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1983
  2. Raxton Corporation, D/B/A Off the Rax v. Anania Associates, Inc., D/B/A Off the RackCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
  3. Randolph Refining Corp. v. ShapiroMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API