Legal Opinion
Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 23, 1953PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MURPHY, District Judge.
This is an application for temporary injunction by plaintiffs alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of defendants’ use of the registered mark “Haymaker” on non-competing goods. Plaintiffs, New Jersey and Massachusetts corporations, respectively, and related companies under the Lanham Act,1 are exclusive owners of four trademarks: “The Haymaker,” registered for gloves and first used in 1940; “Haymaker,” registered for gloves in 1942 and first used in 1936; “Hay-makers,” registered for shoes in 1952 and first used in 1941; and “Haymakers by…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Yale Electric Corporation v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Franke v. WiltschekCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Avon Shoe Co., Inc., and Haymaker Shoe Corp. v. David Crystal, Inc., Haymaker Sports, Inc., B. Altman & Co., Best & Co., Inc., and John WanamakerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Villager, Inc. v. Dial Shoe CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1966
- Atlantic Monthly Co. v. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- Carrera International Corp. v. Carrera Jeans Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1979