Legal Opinion

Fox Fur Co. v. Fox Fur Co.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided March 23, 1945No. Civ. No. 497PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEAHY, District Judge.

1. The conclusion1 is defendant’s use of the words “Fox Fur” in its corporate name, and the use of the same and similar terms in its advertising, are likely to mislead purchasers or prospective purchasers of furs in Delaware into supposing that the furs of the defendant are, in fact, the furs advertised and dealt in by the plaintiffs. That no person was actually mislead is irrelevant, since injunctive relief is granted to prevent threatened or prospective injury.2 The persons who organized and own defendant company could only have been motivated in adopting the word…

2Cases cited21 opinions

Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
Coca Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1934
Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1925

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

3Cited by5 opinions

Telechron, Inc. v. Telicon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1951
The American Plan Corporation v. State Loan & Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
Pachmayr Gun Works, Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
Federal Glass Co. v. Federal Glass Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1952
Pachmayr Gun Works, Inc., a Corporation, and Firearm Accessories, Inc., a Corporation D/B/A the Mershon Co., Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. Winchester Western Division, a Corporation, Pachmayr Gun Works, Inc., a Corporation, and Firearm Accessories, Inc., a Corporation D/B/A the Mershon Co., Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., Winchester Western Division, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974