Legal Opinion
Stratton & Terstegge Co. v. Stiglitz Furnace Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
Decided March 12, 1935PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Stanley, Commissioner
Affirming’.
The suit by the appellant seeks to enjoin the defendant from using the word “Monarch” as a trademark on furnaces sold in Kentucky and for an accounting of damages claimed for infringement and unfair competition. The appeal is from the judgment denying relief and dismissing the petition.
Some time before 1890 the Kruse & Dewenter Company, of Indianapolis, began the manufacture of a steel warm air furnace which was given the name of “Monarch.” This was sold in Louisville for a while by a firm which went iout of business. Not long thereafter,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- United States v. SteffensSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Columbia Mill Co. v. AlcornSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Smith v. Dental Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
- Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Cline v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1985
- Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. SaundersDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1974
- Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.