Lip Lure, Inc. v. Bloomingdale Bros.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
CONGER, District Judge.
The defendant' moves for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, claiming that as a matter of law the plaintiff has no valid rights in the trademark “Lyptone” (the trademark “Lip Lure” is not involved in this action).. Four defenses are urged for the dismissal of the complaint with respect to “Lyptone”. It is claimed that the undisputed facts establish the defendant’s four defenses, any one of which, if proven, is sufficient to dismiss the complaint. The defenses raised are:
1. That the plaintiff did not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Oltarsh v. Goodyear Fabrics Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
- Waverly, Sayre & Athens Transp. Co. v. General Motors Truck Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1940