Legal Opinion
Clairol Incorporated v. Gillette Company
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided June 23, 1967No. 66 Civ. 969PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
WEINSTEIN, District Judge.
In this action for trademark infringement and unfair competition, plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction restraining defendant from using the term “Innocent” on any hair dye product. Defendant acknowledges that it is presently test-marketing and is about to place on the national market a product entitled “Toni Shampoo — Easy Hair Coloring for Innocent Color,” but denies that plaintiff has acquired trademark rights in the word Innocent.
Award of a preliminary injunction is inappropriate. Plaintiff has made neither a “clear showing of probable…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. MaslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Harold F. Ritchie, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Flexitized, Inc., and Flexitized Sales Corporation v. National Flexitized Corporation and Dubin-Haskell Lining Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Clairol Incorporated v. The Gillette CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1980
- Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol IncorporatedCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- Field Enterprises Educational Corp. v. Cove Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1969
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.