Legal Opinion
Chernow v. Cohn & Rosenberger, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 5, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HENBY W. GODDARD, District Judge.
In these two motions to dismiss counterclaims, the facts and the pleadings are alike, and the questions raised are identical so that both of them will be disposed of in this one memorandum.
The bills of complaint allege infringement by the defendant of letters patent No. 1,932,304. The precise act complained of is the selling by the defendant of certain de*870vices generally referred to as “gum back initials.” Each defendant, in its answer, denies infringement and sets up a counterclaim in which it prays for an injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from maliciously…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Moore v. New York Cotton ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Emack v. KaneUnited States Circuit Court · 1888
- A. B. Farquhar Co. v. National Harrow Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1900
- Ingrassia v. ACW Mfg. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1939
- Kaumagraph Co. v. General Trade Mark CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1935