Legal Opinion
Broeg v. Duchaine
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided June 6, 1946PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
The plaintiff in this suit seeks to restrain the defendant from using the name "Mother Parker” as a trade mark in connection with the sale of the products of his bakery; the bill also contains a prayer for damages. From a decree dismissing the bill the plaintiff appeals. The evidence is reported.
The relevant facts are these: The plaintiff began to use the name "Mother Parker”1 in 1931 in connection with a "biscuit mix” that she manufactured in Brooklyn, New York. In 1933 her business was transferred to Boston where, under the name of "Parker Broeg,” she manufactured doughnut, biscuit, and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- American Steel Foundries v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Manhattan Medicine Co. v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- A. Bourjois & Co., Inc. v. KatzelSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Arthur Murray, Inc. v. HorstDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1953
- Movie Mania Metro, Inc. v. GZ DVD's Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2014
- Randolph Refining Corp. v. ShapiroMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Ritz Associates, Inc. v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.New York Supreme Court · 1962
- Gould Engineering Co. v. GoebelMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.