Legal Opinion

Automotive Equipment v. Trico Products Corporation

District Court, W.D. New York

Decided May 23, 1935No. 1965PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KNIGHT, District Judge.

The petitioner herein moves to restrain certain customer suits brought by the respondent, and the respondent moves to dismiss petitioner’s petition for declaratory judgment. Petitioner is the manufacturer of suction operated windshield wipers for use on automobiles under the trade-mark “Motocrat.” Respondent manufactures a suction operated windshield wiper utilized' for the same purpose under the trade-mark “Trico,” and claims title to various patents covering such wiper.

On February 8, 1935, petitioner herein filed in the Southern District of New York a petition for a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Zenie Bros. v. MiskendDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1935
  2. Maytag Co. v. Meadows Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929
  3. Foote v. Parsons Non-Skid Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
  4. Automotive Equipment v. Trico Products CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1935
  5. Wenborne-Karpen Dryer Co. v. Dort Motor Car Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1924

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. QuarlesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
  2. Ethics Commission v. CullisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  3. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boyle Const. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1941
  4. Treemond Co. v. Schering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
  5. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Artists CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API