Barnes v. Pierce
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
1Opinion of the Court
WARD, Circuit Judge.
This is a motion for preliminary injunction. The affidavits show that the complainants manufacture an antiseptic under the artificial name “Argyrol,” which has attained considerable popularity. It is not complained that the defendant, who is a jobbing druggist, imitates this name or the complainant’s package.
March 25, 1908, one Catón having presented a written order for “argyrol” at defendant’s store, his clerk said: “We don’t keep argyrol. We keep nucleinate of silver, which is .the same thing” — and he handed the purchaser a-price list, on which was printed “$1.20 oz.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Canal Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. WendoverU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1890
- Saxlehner v. WagnerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907
3Cited by5 opinions
- King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Telechron, Inc. v. Telicon Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1952
- Associated Press v. International News ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Telechron, Inc. v. Telicon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1951
- Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1934