Matsell v. Flanagan
New York Court of Common Pleas
Motion to dissolve an inj unction. This action was brought by George W. Matsell and. William. Mackellar against P. J. Flanagan and — Finch, composing the firm of Flahagan & Finch, William D. Bancker, Thomas W. Timpson, Samuel Yates ;—Dickerson and John Doe, composing the firm of Dickerson & Co., Philip Dwyer, Wm. Simpson, and — Sharp.
Read the full summary
Motion to dissolve an inj unction. This action was brought by George W. Matsell and. William. Mackellar against P. J. Flanagan and — Finch, composing the firm of Flahagan & Finch, William D. Bancker, Thomas W. Timpson, Samuel Yates ;—Dickerson and John Doe, composing the firm of Dickerson & Co., Philip Dwyer, Wm. Simpson, and — Sharp. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were and long had been, the publishers and-proprietors of the “FationalPolice Gazette,” which was commonly known to the public as the “Police Gazette.” That the defendants had wrongfully prepared and published a…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Brady, J.
J.—It may be conceded that the plaintiffs have no exclusive right to the name which they have adopted for their paper; that in the words used by them no person has any exclusive proprietary interest; that they belong to the language of the country, and may be employed in any way or for any purpose which ydll not defraud individuals or deceive the public. The courts in exercising the power which they possess of restraining the use of another’s trade mark, symbol, name or design, do not confine their interference to names, symbols, marks or designs, originating with the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Colegrove v. New York & New Haven RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. SpearThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
- Brooklyn White Lead Co. v. MasuryNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Hammond v. Hudson River Iron & Machine Co.New York Supreme Court · 1855
- Corwin v. DalyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1860
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Robertson v. BerryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879
- Koebel v. Chicago Landlords' Protective BureauIllinois Supreme Court · 1904