Kimball v. Hall
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to restrain the defendant from the further use of'a trade-name alleged to belong to the plaintiff, and for damages, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County where the plaintiff was nonsuited in a trial to the court, Wolfe, J., from which judgment he appealed. Error and new trial ordered.
1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.
The complaint as originally brought included a prayer for an injunction, which was afterward withdrawn, and the case tried to the court as an action for damages. The following facts appear in the plaintiff’s case in chief: Plaintiff, who was engaged in the jobbing and repairing business of cutting and welding metals by the so-called Oxy-Acetylene or Oxy-Carbide process, adopted and used as a form of advertisement the catch-phrase “Send it to Oxy.” He registered the phrase under the statute (§ 4899) before bringing this action. As the result of using this phrase for more than five years, on…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Dale System, Inc. v. Time, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1953
- Summerfield Co. v. Prime Furniture Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Gardella v. Log Cabin Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- Chas. H. Elliott Co. v. Skillkrafters, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.