Legal Opinion

Mumford Molding Machine Co. v. E. H. Mumford Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided August 7, 1917PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On iinal hearing, bill, counter-claim and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

Backes, V. C.

This controversy is over the right to the use of the name “Mumford” in connection with the manufacture and sale of molding machines.

The contestants are corporations formed under the laws of this state and each seeks an injunction restraining the other from the use, either “directly or indirectly, in connection with the manufacture, sale, advertising of or dealing in any molding machines not manufactured by your orator, of the words ‘Mumford’ or any colorable imitation of your orator’s trade-names ‘Mumford,’ ‘Mumford machines,’ ‘Mumford molding machines,’‘Mumford jolt rammers,’…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Waterman v. . ShipmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Dover Stamping Co. v. FellowsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sachs, Etc., Radio Co. v. SACHS QUALITY STORESNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
  2. Cascade Pools Corp. v. Consolidated Pools & Equipment Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
  3. Brokaw v. BrokawNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1886
  4. Howell v. TomkinsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1886
  5. Lyon v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of the ChurchNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1886

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

Powered by the Exa API