Loonen v. Deitsch
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Bill by Charles Loonen against Charles Deitsch and another. Decree for complainant.
1Opinion of the Court
HAND, District Judge.
The defense here is based upon six lines: First, that the mark is bad because adopted for purposes of deceit and therefore not primarily a mark of ownership at all; second, because the use has not been sufficiently shown to justify the presumption'of a trade-mark; third, because the complainant, being guilty of fraud, has no standing in a court of equity; fourth, because the original use was to indicate only Comilo brushes and could not be extended to bone brushes, after the defendants had begun to make them; fifth, because it is against public policy to allow the Red…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Candee, Swan & Co. v. Deere & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. v. Standard Paint Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Capewell Horse Nail Co. v. MooneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
- Johnson & Johnson v. Bauer & BlackCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1897
- Capewell Horse Nail Co. v. MooneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. A. P. W. Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- General Shoe Corporation v. RosenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
- Old Dutch Foods, Inc. v. Dan Dee Pretzel & Potato Chip Co. And Berg's Pretzels, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1973
- Huber Baking Company v. Stroehmann Brothers Company and Quality Bakers of America Cooperative, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1934
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.