Legal Opinion
Benioff v. Benioff
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 14, 1923No. Civ. No. 4677PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.
Defendants appeal from a judgment enjoining them from engaging in the fur business in the state of California under the name of Hudson Bay Fur Company, or any similar name, claiming that the judgment is erroneous “in so far as it prohibits the defendants from engaging in the fur business in Los Angeles’” under that name. The action is not based on the ground that plaintiffs have any trademark or exclusive right to the name, but is predicated on the common-law right to protection against unfair competition in trade.
The plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, have, since about June 1, 1915,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dodge Stationery Co. v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Bissell Chilled Plow Works v. T. M. Bissell Plow Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan · 1902
- Yellow Cab Co. of San Diego v. SachsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Northwestern Knitting Co. v. GaronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Juvenile Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. SahatiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Johnston v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Winfield v. CharlesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- MacSweeney Enterprises, Inc. v. TarantinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Good Housekeeping Shop v. SmitterMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.