Legal Opinion
Hoxie v. Chaney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided February 24, 1887PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The first of these cases, in the order of'time, is the bill in equity brought by Hoxie against Chaney and Pegram, praying that they may be restrained from the use of the name and words “ A. N. Hoxie’s Mineral Soap,” and “ A. 1ST. Hoxie’s Pumice Soap, manufactured by A. N. Hoxie, agent,” which, as he alleges, constitute a trade-mark, and from the use of his name in their business. The decree was to the effect that the defendants have the sole and exclusive right to use the trademarks “ A. N. Hoxie’s Mineral Soap,” and “ A. 1ST. Hoxie’s Pumice Soap,” but have no right to use words importing…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Manhattan Medicine Co. v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Kidd v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Dwight v. HamiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Connell v. ReedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Cottrell v. Babcock Printing Press Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Brown Chemical Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Chas. S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
- United States Ozone Co. v. United States Ozone Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
- Chadwick v. CovellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Russia Cement Co. v. LePageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.