Legal Opinion · Dissent

Winthrop Chemical Co. v. Blackman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 7, 1936Published

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

  1. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Prestonettes, Inc. v. CotySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  3. Centaur Co. v. HeinsfurterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
  4. Fairbanks v. JacobusU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1877
  5. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. FordCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1913

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API