Legal Opinion
American Optical Company v. Rayex Corporation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 28, 1966No. 66 Civ. 1633PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TENNEY, District Judge.
This motion is to enjoin certain alleged activities of the defendants herein. Jurisdiction of the Court is based on Sections 39 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1121, 1125(a), as well as diversity of citizenship.
The activity involved is the alleged use by defendants, in their sunglass cata logue, of a photograph of plaintiffs’ higher quality sunglass in connection with sales of its * (defendants’) inferior quality glass.
Plaintiff American Optical Company has, for the past twenty-five years, manufactured and sold sunglasses and lenses therefor. Plaintiff…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Blazon, Inc. v. DeLuxe Game Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1965
- Glenn v. Advertising Publications, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Industries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
- Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Industries, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1962
- NATIONAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION v. John Surrey, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Corp. of America v. Solar Sound Sys., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1974
- American Optical Company, C'bon, Inc. And Cool-Ray, Inc. v. Rayex Corporation and Monaco Optical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Crossbow, Inc. v. Dan-Dee Imports, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Sublime Products, Inc. v. Gerber Products, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- American Optical Company v. Rayex CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.