Legal Opinion

Dr. A. Reed Cushion Shoe Co. v. Frew

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York

Decided January 6, 1908No. 291PublishedCited by 1 opinion

• • In Equity. On final hearing.

1Opinion of the Court

HAZEL, District Judge.

This bill is to restrain unfair competition, in trade. The principal question involved is whether the defendants may lawfully use the name “Dr. A. Reed,” or equivalent designations, upon their cards, shoes or shoe straps, boxes and advertisements, or whether such use, as hereinafter described, is in unfair trade competition with the complainant’s vendible goods. The material facts are as follows: In 1893, Dr. Adam Reed and George J. Winter, who were joint owners of the Reed invention for a cushion sole for a shoe,' granted licenses to several firms or corporations to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Pillsbury v. Pillsbury Washburn Flour Mills Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1894
  3. R. W. Rogers Co. v. Wm. Rogers Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1895
  4. Ludington Novelty Co. v. LeonardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903
  5. N. K. Fairbank Co. v. WindsorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wolf Bros. & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API