Bradley v. Norton
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill in equity, alleging that the respondent had used and still continued to use a trade-mark belonging to the petitioner, and praying that he might be enjoined against its further use either in selling goods already so stamped by him, or in stamping with it packages thereafter put up for sale.
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, alleging that the respondent had used and still continued to use a trade-mark belonging to the petitioner, and praying that he might be enjoined against its further use either in selling goods already so stamped by him, or in stamping with it packages thereafter put up for sale. The respondent filed a general denial, and the question as to what decree should be passed was reserved for the advice of this court upon a special finding by the superior court embracing the following facts. Andrew Coe of Middlefield, then a parish in Middletown, in 1851, after several years of…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCurdy, J.
The principal questions on the merits are— 1st. Has the petitioner an exclusive right to make and vend the article called “ Coe’s Superphosphate of Lime,” under that description as a trade-mark ? — 2d. Has that right been violated ? — and 3d. Is this application the appropriate remedy for an injury ?
1. That this species of property — the exclusive right to a trade-mark — exists and is recognized by law, is beyond question. 2 Swift’s Dig., Rev. Ed., 157. It appears from the finding that Andrew Coe, after some years of experiment and effort in combining certain materials, had succeeded in…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Gilman v. HunnewellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Atlas Assurance Co. v. Atlas InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Shaver v. ShaverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Regis v. H. A. Jaynes & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Smith v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.