Legal Opinion

Mead Johnson & Co. v. R. H. Macy & Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1960PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGeorge Timer, J.

This is a motion to restrain defendant pendente lite from selling products bearing plaintiff’s name, brands and trade-mark below the established price.

Pursuant to the General Business Law (§ 369-a et seq.) plaintiff entered into agreements with retail druggists in the State of New York under which plaintiff did stipulate minimum retail resale prices for its products. Specifically, this proceeding involves price cutting of “ Metrecal ”, a dietary for weight control. It is a relatively new product and was first introduced into the New York market in the Fall of 1959. In view of the public…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bristol-Myers Co. v. PickerNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
  2. Sunbeam Corp. v. MarcusDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1952

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. National Distillers & Chemical Corp. v. R. H. Macy & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  2. Mead Johnson & Co. v. G-E-X Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Parke, Davis & Co. v. Green Willow, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API