Legal Opinion
Burlington Mills Corporation v. Roy Fabrics
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 17, 1950PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CONGER, Justice.
This is a motion by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees,- etc. as follows:
“a. From using the names ‘Burlington Mills’, ‘Burlington’ and ‘Bur-Mil’ and any other trademark or trade name of plaintiff in connection with the display, offering for sale or sale of any goods or fabrics not produced by plaintiff.
“b. From using any name or title resembling that of the plaintiff or any title which may be calculated or have the tendency to mislead…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Yale Electric Corporation v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Standard Brands, Inc. v. SmidlerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Cheney Bros. v. Cimbel Bros.District Court, S.D. New York · 1922
- Douds v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local 1District Court, S.D. New York · 1948
3Cited by18 opinions
- Chris W. Henry, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Midwest Battery, Inc., and Cross-Appellant v. Chloride, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1987
- Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959
- Western Star Trucks, Inc. v. Big Iron Equipment Service, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2004
- Matrix Essentials, Inc. v. Cosmetic Gallery, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- Puritan Sportswear Corp. v. ShureDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1969
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.