Schmidt v. Brieg
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
This is an action for an injunction, and to recover damages for an infringement of plaintiffs’ trademark and labels.
The facts found by the court below are substantially as follows: In the year 1887, plaintiffs commenced to manufacture and sell a new and valuable medicinal compound or beverage, and adopted and used in con- *676and Iron.” By reason of the superior character of the medicinal constituents employed in the manufacture of the beverage or compound it became widely known and highly esteemed by the trade, and identified and distinguished by dealers and consumers under the designation of “…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Tennessee Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Choynski v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Pierce v. GuittardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. SahatiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Dunston v. Los Angeles Van & Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Atlas Assurance Co. v. Atlas InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Sun-Maid Raisin Growers v. MosesianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Italian Swiss Colony v. Italian Vineyard Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.