Legal Opinion

Roy Watch Case Co. v. Camm-Roy Watch Case Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1899PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Motion to continue an injunction pendente lite.

1Opinion of the CourtGildersleeve, J.

The plaintiff moves to continue pendente lite a temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from using the name of Camm-Eoy Watch Case Company. The motion was made before the defendant’s time to answer had expired. The complaint avers, in substance, that both parties to the action are domestic corporations; that the plaintiff was incorporated on June 18, 1885, and the defendant on May 19, 1899; that the plaintiff, ever since its formation, has carried on, in the city of Hew York, the business of manufacturing and selling watch eases; that its name has become of great consequence in the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People Ex Rel. Davies v. CowlesNew York Court of Appeals · 1856

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ajax Tool Co. v. Buchalter Tool Co.New York Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Miles Shoes of New York, Inc. v. Niles Bootery, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  3. Foster Bros. Manufacturing Co. v. Ideal Bedding Co.New York Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API