Glen & Hall Manufacturing Co. v. Hall
Commission of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, setting aside a decision of Special Term and granting a new trial on a case heard under section 268 of the Code. (Reported below, 6 Lans., 158.) The action was brought to restrain the defendant from using an alleged trade mark, “Number 10,” on the ground that it was a part of the plaintiff’s trade mark.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, setting aside a decision of Special Term and granting a new trial on a case heard under section 268 of the Code. (Reported below, 6 Lans., 158.) The action was brought to restrain the defendant from using an alleged trade mark, “Number 10,” on the ground that it was a part of the plaintiff’s trade mark. The defendant admitted that he used the words “Number 10 ” in his business, but alleged that it was part of his own trade mark, and set up that the plaintiff had .fraudulently used the same for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Dwight, C.
The first question which will be considered in this case is whether the words “Bumber 10,” used under the circumstances detailed in the statement of facts, constitute a good trade mark.
It must be conceded that it does not comply with the definition of a trade mark as usually given in the text books. That has been commonly confined to the products of manufacture or of human labor. Thus, Upton says, “ a trade mark is the name, symbol, figure, letter, form or device adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate the goods that he manufactures or sells and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Congress & Empire Spring Co. v. High Rock Congress Spring Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Partridge v. MenckNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- Christy v. MurphyNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Ashley v. . MarshallNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Howe v. SearingThe Superior Court of New York City · 1860
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Neva-Wet Corp. of America, Inc. v. Never Wet Processing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Fulton County Gas & Electric Co. v. Hudson River Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills Co. v. EagleCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1898
- Koehler v. . SandersNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Ball v. . Broadway BazaarNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.