Legal Opinion
Juvenile Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 14, 1923No. 3927PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The record fully justifies the order of the Federal Trade Commission enjoining the use of the petitioner’s corporate name. The petitioner went into the business of manufacturing and selling children’s shoes and took a name so similar to a senior corporation that was engaged in precisely the same business and in the same field that confusion of the two corporations in the public mind was inevitable. The names “Juvenile Shoe Corporation” and “Juvenile Shoe Company, Inc.,’’ *59are practically identical. The reported cases in which injunction has been sustained…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1919
- Straus v. Notaseme Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills Co. v. EagleCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1898
- N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Luckel, King & Cake Soap Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- General Film Co. v. General Film Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Del Monte Special Food Co. v. California Packing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- Queen Mfg. Co. v. Isaac Ginsberg & Bros.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- American Airlines, Inc. v. North American Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Middletown Trust Co. v. Middletown National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Lawyers Title Ins. Co. v. Lawyers Title Ins. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.