Legal Opinion
William Rogers Manuf'g Co. v. Rogers & Spurr Manuf'g Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided April 22, 1882PublishedCited by 18 opinions
In Equity.
1Opinion of the CourtLowell, C. J.
The plaintiffs allege that one William Rogers, of Hartford, had been a skilful manufacturer of silver-plated ware long before 1865, and had acquired a high and valuable reputation; and in that year a copartnership was formed between one Birch and one Pierce, who agreed with William Rogers that the firm should be called the William Rogers Manufacturing Company, and agreed with him and his son, William Rogers, Jr., that they might adopt and use as trade-marks, Wm. Rogers & Son,” and “1865, Wra. Rogers Mfg. Co.,” and that they were so used until 1872, when the present corporation was formed, and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Holmes, Booth & Atwood Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- Gilman v. HunnewellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- William Rogers Manufacturing Co. v. RogersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- Meriden Britannia Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills Co. v. EagleCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1898
- Dodge Stationery Co. v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Garrett v. T. H. Garrett & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- R. W. Rogers Co. v. Wm. Rogers Manuf'g Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1895
- Bissell Chilled Plow Works v. T. M. Bissell Plow Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan · 1902
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.