Wightman & Hough Co. v. Nivois
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in equity by the Wightman & Hough Company against Victor Nivois. From an order denying a preliminary injunction, complainant appeals. Tlio notion is to restrain infringement of trade-mark and unfair compel ition. Defendant owned a patent on a cigarette ease.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in equity by the Wightman & Hough Company against Victor Nivois. From an order denying a preliminary injunction, complainant appeals. Tlio notion is to restrain infringement of trade-mark and unfair compel ition. Defendant owned a patent on a cigarette ease. In July, 1917, plaintiff became the exclusive licensee under said patent for the “manufae-factnre and sale” of cases made under the patent, provided that said cases should be made only of “'German silver, sterling silver, gold-filled, and solid…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] In the absence of any showing of earlier appropriation, plaintiff had perfect right to use “Yankee” as a trade-mark for cigarette cases. Cf. Scandinavia, etc., Co. v. Asbestos, etc., Co., 257 Fed. 937,- C. C. A.-.
[2] That defendant suggested the name as a good one is immaterial. A trade-mark is appurtenant to a business, and the question argued at bar is: Whose was the business of dealing in "Yankee” cigarette cases? It is quite true that a trade-mark may belong to a dealer in, and not to the manufacturer of, the goods known by the trade-name (Menendez…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Crescent Tool Co. v. Kilborn & Bishop Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Scandinavia Belting Co. v. Asbestos & Rubber Works of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- President Suspender Co. v. MacwilliamCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
3Cited by5 opinions
- Morse-Starrett Products Co. v. StecconeDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1949
- American-Marietta Co. v. KrigsmanDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1959
- Davis v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1925
- Frazier v. Interstate R.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1921
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. KratzerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930