Legal Opinion
Hunyadi Janos Corporation v. Stoeger
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 7, 1925No. 171PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Since this suit is between citizens of the same state, there is no jurisdiction to consider the charges of unfair competition, and consequently no propriety in enjoining the defendant from simulation of bottle forms and other allegedly unfair practices. In this respect at least the decree complained of was erroneous.
Jurisdiction rests entirely on the fact that the suit is upon registered trade-marks. Section 17, Act Feb. 20, 1905 (Comp. St., § 9502). If there ever was a business at 130 Fulton street of sufficient independent vitality to be seized by the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Warner v. Searle & Hereth Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Miller Rubber Co. v. BehrendCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Stephano Bros. v. StamatopoulosCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
3Cited by4 opinions
- Youngs Rubber Corporation v. CI Lee & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Magic Foam Sales Corp. v. Mystic Foam Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Elka Toy & Novelty Manufacturing Corp. v. Fisher-Price Toys, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Magic Foam Sales Corp. v. Mystic Foam Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1947