Legal Opinion
Tolfree v. Wetzler
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 10, 1927No. 2077PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, District Judge.
This is a bill in equity for the enforcement of rights arising out of a patent, No. 1,281,690, granted October 15, 1918. Plaintiff also complains of the infringement of a trade-mark (“X,” No. 115,684, registered February 27, 1917), and the unfair use of a trade-name (“X Liquid”). Defendants’ counsel promptly and candidly conceded that the “X” was sufficiently a dominant feature common to both marks to amount to trade-mark infringement in goods of the same descriptive property. They further admitted that the similarity in names was likely to deceive purchasers. A decree…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Virginian Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Feathercombs, Inc. v. Solo Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Seymour v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Robinson v. DigaetanoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954
- Feathercombs, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Solo Products Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Solo Products Corporation v. Feathercombs, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- (PC) Spearman v. HillbergDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.