Legal Opinion
Ames Shower Curtain Co. v. Heinz Nathanson, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 31, 1968No. 67 Civil 4884PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HERLANDS, District Judge:
Defendant moves for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., as to the first cause of action of plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of non-infringement of plaintiff’s design patent, and for dismissal of the second and third causes of action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the motion is denied in all respects.
The complaint (filed December 13, 1967) states three causes of action: (1) alleging infringement of plaintiff’s design patent, No. D. 209,467, for a shower curtain hook; (2) alleging common-law…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Electrical Fittings Corp. v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Vermont Structural Slate Company, Inc. v. Tatko Brothers Slate Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Xerox Corporation v. Dennison Manufacturing CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971
- Wilden Pump & Engineering Co., a Corporation v. Pressed & Welded Products Co., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Metal Film Company v. Metlon CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1970
- Hughes v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- William Hodges & Co., Inc. v. Sterwood Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1972