Eggers v. Hink
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Per curiam
The action is to recover damages for a violation of the plaintiff’s alleged trade-mark, and to restrain the use of it by the defendant in the future. The sufficiency of the complaint is the question for consideration. According to its averments the plaintiff is engaged in conducting a saloon business in the city and county of San Francisco, particularly for the sale of a certain kind of beer known as Philadelphia Beer; and what he seeks to protect as a trade-mark, and which is used by him as a sign over the doors of his place of business, and as a label for the beer bottled by him, consists…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Dunston v. Los Angeles Van & Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Mossler v. JacobsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
- Alhambra Transfer & Storage Co. v. MuseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Ball v. SiegelIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
- Peacock v. City of MiamiSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.