Legal Opinion

Barett v. Goodwin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 30, 1943PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.

This is a bill to restrain the infringement of an alleged trade mark. The facts appear in the report of a master, which was confirmed. There is no appeal from the interlocutory decree confirming the report, but the plaintiff appealed from a final decree dismissing the bill.

The plaintiff, who began business in 1928, is engaged in manufacturing and selling shoe buckles and clothing buckles in Lynn. He began to make clothing buckles in 1933. In March, 1937, he began to make clothing buckles with the following features: (a) design; (b) pivot hinge, the function of which is to allow the buckle to…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Straus v. Notaseme Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Flagg Manufacturing Co. v. HolwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
  4. New England Awl & Needle Co. v. Marlborough Awl & Needle Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  5. George G. Fox Co. v. GlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Laughlin Filter Corp. v. Bird Machine Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  2. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. National Merchandising Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
  3. Angell Elevator Lock Co. Inc. v. ManningMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API