Legal Opinion

Artiste Permanent Wave Co. v. Hulsman

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Decided March 17, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

Morris, Commissioner

Affirming.

The ease is before ns on second appeal. See 271 Ky. 695, 113 S. W. (2d) 55. It will not be necessary to restate the facts as they appeared on the first appeal; suffice it to say that in the original suit by appellant it was sought to enjoin the appellees from using the trade name “Art Beauty Shoppe,” on the grounds that such use constituted an infringement on the rights of plaintiff in the use of the name “Artiste Beauty Shoppe.”

The chancellor hearing the first case denied injunctive relief. On review we concluded that the name “Art Beauty…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Chas. S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
  2. Middletown Trust Co. v. Middletown National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  3. Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Cellonite Manuf'g Co.United States Circuit Court · 1887
  4. Selby v. MatsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
  5. Federal Securities Co. v. Federal Securities Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cockrell v. DavisMississippi Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Kay Jewelry Co. v. Gay's Jewelry, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1955
  3. Pennington v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API