Legal Opinion
Allen v. Standard Crankshaft & Hydraulic Co.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided September 23, 1963No. 8935PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge.
The District Court held invalid, on several counts, and uninfringed plaintiffs’ patent No. 2,567,685 on a “Method of Reconditioning Crankshafts and the Like,” but it found that a service mark used by the defendants was confusingly similar to a mark previously used by the plaintiffs, and concluded that continued use by the defendants of their mark should be enjoined. We agree with the District Court on both branches of the case.
An automotive crankshaft is a complicated structure. In its axis there are several main journals, designed for installation in the main…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kenneth Reiner and Frank A. Klaus, Jr., D/B/A Kaynar Company and Kaynar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. I. Leon Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Frances P. Norman and Frances P. Norman D/B/A the Norman Company, a Partnership Consisting of Frances P. Norman and Norman Norman v. Leonard LawrenceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Felix Williams v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1958
3Cited by20 opinions
- Shakespeare Company v. Silstar Corporation of America, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
- Cummins Engine Company v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1969
- Putt-Putt, LLC v. 416 Constant Friendship, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
- Allen v. Standard Crankshaft & Hydraulic CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
- American Air Filter Company, Inc. v. Continental Air Filters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1965
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.