Legal Opinion

Crawford v. Laus

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1899PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion for an injunction pendente lite.

1Opinion of the CourtGiegerich, J.

While, from an inspection of the photographs of the parties’ respective places of business, it would seem that *249there is no such identity of appearance as would justify the granting of an injunction to restrain the maintenance of the defendant’s store in its present condition, I think that the motion should be granted to protect the plaintiff, pendente lite, from an infringement of his trade-mark, “ The Little Shop,” the question of his earlier adoption and advertisement of the name not being in dispute. The defendant’s chosen appellation, “ The Little Antique Shop,” as applied to a business…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chas. S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
  2. Cohn v. ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Morgan v. BennettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fort Stanwix Canning Co. v. William McKinley Canning Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  2. Ft. Stanwix Canning Co. v. William McKinley Canning Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API