Legal Opinion
L. H. Harris Drug Co. v. Stucky
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania
Decided June 11, 1891PublishedCited by 4 opinions
In Equity.
1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.
The plaintiff in this case, claiming to be the owner, as the .assignee and successor of Dr. L. H. Harris, of a certain trade-mark registered by him, February 3, 1885, under the provisions of the act of congress of March 3, 1881, alleged infringement by the defendant, and prayed for an injunction and account. The defendant denied the right -of the plaintiff to the exclusive use of the words “Cramp cure,” which were the words used by plaintiff and defendant, and in controversy, because not part of the registered-trade-mark, or, if held to be part of the registered trade-mark, denied that any…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. SteffensSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Brown Chemical Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Tennessee Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Manufacturing Co. v. TrainerSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. v. Standard Paint Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Hennessy v. Braunschweiger & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1898
- Dietene Co. v. Dietrim Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1954