Legal Opinion

Noma Lites, Inc. v. Lawn Spray, Inc. And Walter H. Steiner

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 20, 1955No. 326, Docket 23618PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

The preliminary injunction here granted, D.C., 130 F.Supp. 124, is valid. The defendants’ advertising and packaging of their product is so similar to the material used by the plaintiff for its product as to entitle the plaintiff under state law to protection even without a preliminary showing of secondary meaning. Santa’s Workshop, Inc. v. Sterling, 282 App.Div. 328, 122 N.Y.S.2d 488; Notaseme Hosiery Co. v. Straus, 2 Cir., 201 F. 99. Further, the individual defendant, who is now the chief officer of the corporate defendant, was employed by the plaintiff when the latter was devising this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Franke v. WiltschekCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
  2. Santa's Workshop, Inc. v. SterlingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  3. Notaseme Hosiery Co. v. StrausCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
  4. Noma Lites, Inc. v. Lawn Spray, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1955

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Perfect Fit Industries, Inc. v. Acme Quilting Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
  2. Ralston Purina Company v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1972
  3. FN Herstal SA v. Clyde Armory Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2016
  4. Kaplan, Inc. v. YunDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
  5. Speedry Products, Inc. v. Dri Mark Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959

10 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