Legal Opinion

Armour & Co. v. Master Tire & Rubber Co.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided August 1, 1925No. 104PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOUGH, District Judge.

Armour & Co. filed its bill of complaint against tbe Master Tire & Rubber Company for injunctions and accounting. A basis of tbe remedy asked is unfair competition in tbe use of tbe word “Armour” as a trade-name. Tbe bill of complaint was twice amplified by amendment. Later, tbe Armour Tire & Rubber Company as well as tbe receivers for both companies were made parties defendant; the Armour Tire & Rubber Company being subsequently organized under tbe laws of Ohio for tbe purpose of acting as a selling agency for tbe Master Tire & Rubber Company. These two companies were…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1925
  2. Akron-Overland Tire Co. v. Willys-Overland Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921
  3. Peninsular Chemical Co. v. LevinsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
  4. Keehn v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1924

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Standard Oil Co. of New Mexico, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
  2. Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd.District Court, S.D. California · 1945
  3. California Fruit Growers Exchange v. Windsor Beverages, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
  4. G. B. Kent & Sons, Ltd. v. P. Lorillard Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  5. Philco Corporation v. Phillips Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API