Cooke Cobb Co. v. . Miller
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered August 3, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff, on the facts shown, is clearly entitled to an injunction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered August 3, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff, on the facts shown, is clearly entitled to an injunction. (Caswell v. Hazard, 121 N. Y. 484; Gillot v. Esterbrook, 48 N. Y. 374; Low v. Hart, 90 N. Y. 457; 139 N. Y. 364; A. Mfg. Co. v. Trainor, 101 U. S. 51; Rains v. White, 52 S. W. Rep. 970;…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
The judgment from which this appeal was taken affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the jffaintiff’s complaint on the merits.
The purpose of the action was to restrain by perpetual injunction the use by the defendants in their business of certain words, or a certain label or device, which it is. alleged amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark. It is claimed that long prior to the use of the device or label by the defendants the plaintiff had adopted it as its trade mark and that the use by the defendants was a wrongful invasion of the plaintiff’s property rights…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Manufacturing Co. v. TrainerSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Meneely v. . MeneelyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Caswell v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Munro v. . TouseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Westcott Chuck Co. v. Oneida National Chuck Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Artype, Incorporated v. Joseph Zappulla, Doing Business as Art-Type ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- American Lead Pencil Co. v. L. Gottlieb & SonsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1910
- Stephano Bros. v. StamatopoulosCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1938
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.