Huwer v. . Dannenhoffer
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of -the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a decision of the court on trial -at Special Term, and granting a new trial. This action was brought to restrain defendants from the use of the word “ Silex” as a trade-mark and for damages, etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of -the General Term of the City Court of Brooklyn, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon a decision of the court on trial -at Special Term, and granting a new trial. This action was brought to restrain defendants from the use of the word “ Silex” as a trade-mark and for damages, etc. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion, The word “Silex” is the proper subject for a trade-mark to designate the origin and ownership of glass chimneys. (Burnett v. Phalon, 3 Keyes, 594; 5 Abb. [N. Y.] 212; Schneitzer v. Atkins, 19 Law Times [N. S.], 6; Prot v.…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
For over three years prior to June, 1877, the plaintiff and defendants, under the firm name of Huwer and Dannenhoffer, carried on the business of manufacturing glass chimneys for lamps, in the city of Brooklyn. Their place of business was called “ The Long Island Flint Glass Works,” and they adopted the word “ Silex ” as a trade-mark for the designation of them goods.
In June, 1877, the firm was dissolved and the defendants sold to the plaintiff their interest in the real estate whereon the business was conducted, and also in certain personal property connected with the business; and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Mumford v. McPhersonNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Durgin v. . Ireland and PrudenNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
3Cited by4 opinions
- Merry v. . HoopesNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Baldwin v. Von MicherouxNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Millbrae Co. v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Barclay v. BarclayNew York Supreme Court · 1915