Jaros Hygienic Underwear Co. v. Fleece Hygienic Underwear Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In Equity. Bill by the Jaros Hygienic Underwear Company against the Fleece Hygienic Underwear Company for the infringement of a patent. On demurrer.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
The demurrer to this'bill could not be sustained upon the ground first assigned for its support. The fact that the bill alleged infringement of- trade-mark rights, and also of certain rights secured by letters patent, does not render it multifarious. Courts of equity are averse to the multiplication of suits; and no definite rule, of general applicability, has been, or can be, laid down as a test of multifariousness. The question, in each instance where it is presented, is largely addressed to the regulated discretion of the judge, and is to be determined with reference…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Adee v. Peck Bros. & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1889
3Cited by11 opinions
- Adam v. FolgerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Delaware · 1899
- Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. HudnallDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1922
- Bracken v. RosenthalU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1907
- T. B. Woods Sons Co. v. Valley Iron WorksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.