Legal Opinion

Mulhens A. Kropff, Inc. v. Ferd Muelhens, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 9, 1929PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MACK, Circuit Judge.

Action for a permanent injunction to restrain defendant from selling eau de cologne and other articles bearing the registered trade-mark “4711” and/or publishing statements that it is selling the only genuine “4711” eau de cologne and cologne products, or otherwise directly or indirectly interfering with the sale of plaintiff’s “4711” eau de cologne and other toilet articles. Jurisdiction is based on Federal registration of the trademark. The record establishes in my j'udgment the following faets:

Since 1792 the Muelhens family has been engaged in manufacturing eau de…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. Prestonettes, Inc. v. CotySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. PutnamSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Sultana Crackers, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1988
  2. Pepsico, Inc. v. The Grapette Company, Inc., and Grapette-Aristocrat, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
  3. Trebuhs Realty Co. v. News Syndicate Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
  4. Bishop v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
  5. Clark & Freeman Corp. v. Heartland Co. Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993

6 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