Westminister Laundry Co. v. Hesse Envelope Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City- Circuit Court. — Eon. Daniel D.- Fisher, Judge. ; Plaintiff’s petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. The petition does not allege any exclusive proprietary interest in plaintiff of the phrase uStopurkicken.” Reach Co. v. Hardware Co., 155 Mo. App. 412; Asphalt Co. v. Paint Co., 163 Fed. 977.
1Opinion of the Court
NORTON!, J.
This is a suit for damages, m which plaintiff recovered a verdict for one dollar. On this verdict, judgment was given, and defendant prosecutes an appeal therefrom. .
All of the relevant facts appear from the face of the petition, and the question of liability is to be determined thereon. It appears that the plaintiff, the defendant and the D’Arcy Advertising Company are each corporations engaged in their respective callings in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff owns and is engaged in the business of operating a steam laundry. Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Oakes v. St. Louis Candy Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Grocers Journal Co. v. Midland Publishing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- A. J. Reach Co. v. Simmons Hardware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- St. Louis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. MerkelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- K. Taylor Distilling Co. v. Food Center of St. Louis, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1940
- Beyond the Dog, LLC v. Allyson Salzer and Canine Behavioral Blueprints, LLC; Allyson Salzer and Canine Behavioral Blueprints, LLC v. Beyond the Dog, LLC, Kristyn Echterling-Savage, and Sean SavageDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2026