Thomson-Porcelite Co. v. Harad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Patterson,
Thomson-Porcelite Co., appellee, filed this hill in equity to enjoin Benjamin Harad, trading as General Paint & Varnish Co., and Porcelene Paint Co., Arthur S. Harad, Mary Harad and Annie Harad, from using the trade-name “Porcelene” in the advertisement and sale of competitive paint products, contending that said name was deceptively similar and constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court below dismissed exceptions to the Chancellor’s adjudication and perpetually enjoined appellants from using the name “Porcelene.” A rule granted to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Quaker State Oil Refining Co. v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Hartman v. CohnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Shaw v. PillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- J. N. Collins Co. v. F. M. Paist Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Morgan's Home Equipment Corp. v. MartucciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Arthur L. Johnson and Marjorie Johnson, a Partnership Doing Business as All-State School of DrivingCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1955
- Pennsylvania State University v. University Orthopedics, Ltd.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Peters v. MacHikasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- KoolVent Metal Awning Corp. of America v. PriceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.