Winthrop Chemical Co. v. Blackman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Untermyer, J. (dissenting in part).
I am inclined to concur, though with some hesitation, in the conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed in so far as the use by the defendants of the names “ Theobrominal, ’ ’ “ Kre-o-minal ” and “ Aristol ” are concerned, none of these products ever having been patented. I entertain serious doubt concerning the propriety of enjoining the defendants from selling their Diethylbarbituric Acid (contracted into “ Barbital ”) as “ Veronal ” or their Silver Proteinate as “ Protargol ” for the reason that these compounds were protected by patents and might,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Prestonettes, Inc. v. CotySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Centaur Co. v. HeinsfurterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
- Fairbanks v. JacobusU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1877
- Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. FordCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.