Lepage Co. v. Russia Cement Co.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States' for the District of Massachusetts. . Action by the Russia Cement Company against The LePage Company to.recover damages for the wrongful use of the name “LePage” in connection with glues manufactured by defendant. The court ruled that defendant’s use of the name was a violation of plaintiff’s rights, and that the only question for the jury was the amount of the damages.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States' for the District of Massachusetts. . Action by the Russia Cement Company against The LePage Company to.recover damages for the wrongful use of the name “LePage” in connection with glues manufactured by defendant. The court ruled that defendant’s use of the name was a violation of plaintiff’s rights, and that the only question for the jury was the amount of the damages. A verdict was returned for $8,000, and judgment entered thereon. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Putnam, Circuit Judge.
The court below instructed the jury, as a matter of law, that the words, “Manufactured by The LePage Company,” on defendant’s packages, were infringements. If it was proper |to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff, it is unimportant whether the court expressed itself in that form or in the form which was actually used. We are of the opinion that the court correctly instructed the jury on this topic; and this, of course, renders unimportant all the other exceptions of the defendant below, unless so far as-they may touch the question of damages.
The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Brown Chemical Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Tennessee Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Kidd v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Royal Baking Powder Co. v. RoyalCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Madrigal Audio Laboratories, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Cello, Ltd., and Mark Levinson, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Levitt Corp. v. LevittCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Peck Bros. & Co. v. Peck Bros.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1902
- A. Bourjois & Co. v. KatzelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.