Union Paper Collar Co. v. Metropolitan Collar Co.
New York Court of Common Pleas
Motion by defendants for leave to inspect the plaintiffs* books. The action was brought to restrain the infringement of a trade mark. The plaintiffs claimed to establish their right to the trade mark "by reason of priority of appropriation and of the reputation acquired by sales of their goods thereunder.
Read the full summary
Motion by defendants for leave to inspect the plaintiffs* books. The action was brought to restrain the infringement of a trade mark. The plaintiffs claimed to establish their right to the trade mark "by reason of priority of appropriation and of the reputation acquired by sales of their goods thereunder. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were not the first to-appropriate the trade mark, and that they had never introduced their goods under the said name in any market, or ever’ sold any goods under the said name, unless in very trifling quantities and at merely nominal prices, and…
1Opinion of the CourtBrady, J.
I consider the case of Lefferts v. Brampton (24 Howard Pr. 257), decided by the general term of this court, conclusive of the defendants’ right to the inspection *172(demanded. In that case it was held that if facts and circumistanees are shown which warrant a preswnption that the book ■or document sought contains evidence which will prove, or tend .to prove, some fact which the party applying has to establish, ■the application for a discovery should be granted. In this mase, if the defendants can prove by the plaintiffs’ books that the Union collar was not sufficiently distributed by sales to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1876
- Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
- Perls v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1890
- Ahlmeyer v. HealyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1887
- Knoch v. FunkeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.