Legal Opinion
Pontefact v. Isenberger
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Decided December 21, 1900PublishedCited by 4 opinions
In Equity.
1Opinion of the Court
WHEELER, District Judge.
This cause has been submitted upon an agreed s tat ('men I: of facts. It shows that the plaintiffs have the sole right to the use of the trade-mark “Golden Wedding,” as applied *500to the whisky of their production, and that the defendant has refilled the plaintiffs’ barrels carrying the trade-mark, to palm off his product as that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to a decree according to the terms of the stipulation. Decree for plaintiffs for $350, according to stipulation.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1914
- Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Avery Lighting Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1908
- Soy Food Mills, Inc. v. Pillsbury Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
- Prest-O-Lite Co. v. BournonvilleDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1915