Legal Opinion
Russo v. Thompson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 3, 1936PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.
The allegations of the bill, briefly summarized, are these: The plaintiffs, with labor and expense, have developed and perfected a shoe press for resoling shoes without the use of nails, which they have placed upon the market, which has become known as the Russo machine, and for which, through diligent effort and advertising, they *46have created a valuable good will. The defendant Thompson has manufactured machines which are copies in detail and design of the Russo machine, including all its characteristic features, and has palmed them off to the trade as and for the Russo machine. The…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Pearson v. MulloneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Flagg Manufacturing Co. v. HolwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- MacLeod v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Boston Diatite Co. v. Florence Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Menard v. HouleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Bouchard v. BouchardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- John A. Frye Shoe Co. v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Ravage v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- MacEra v. ManciniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.