Legal Opinion
Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. G. D. Searle & Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided April 3, 1957No. Civ. A. No. 263-56PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORTENDYKE, District Judge.
There is diversity of citizenship between the parties to this action and the minimum jurisdictional requirement exists. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties.
The plaintiff, a corporation of the State of New York, is seeking an injunction, together with an accounting of profits and counsel fee, to restrain further use by the defendant, a corporation of the State of Illinois, of the name Mietine, which the defendant has adopted for one of its products. Plaintiff alleges such a similarity in spelling, sound and suggestiveness to the name Micturin, which the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Morgenstern Chemical Company, Inc. v. G. D. Searle & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. American Cyanamid Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1973
- Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. A. & P. Trucking Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958