Pipe Linings, Inc. v. Inplace Linings, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
BOYD, Justice.
This is a case of alleged unfair competition. Pipe Linings, Inc., sued Inplace Linings, Inc., for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the words “in place” in its corporate name because the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, by adopting a corporate name so similar to plaintiff’s corporate name, had confused and deceived the public, including potential customers, to the extent that a person intending to deal with the plaintiff would, by mistake, deal with the defendant; and that the plaintiff, by extensive advertising and sales promotion, had acquired a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Trappey v. McIlhenny Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1922
- Dixiepig Corp. v. Pig Stand Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1930
- Goidl v. Advance Neckwear Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1939
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Thompson v. Thompson Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)1994
- Douglas v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Kikk, Inc. v. Montgomery County Broadcasting, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Rogers v. Famous Brands of Texas, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1961
- Associated Sales, Inc. v. HumesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.