Legal Opinion

Nu Enamel Corp. v. Nate Enamel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 25, 1935PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

The record on appeal herein leaves no doubt in our minds that the defendants have been guilty of most flagrant acts of unfair competition with the plaintiffs. The surreptitious manner in which the defendants obtained from plaintiff Nu Enamel Corporation inside information of the conduct of its business, under the guise of securing a franchise for the sale and distribution • of said plaintiff’s products in the State of California, including said plaintiff’s folder of printed directions and information for the use of its product, clearly discloses the defendants’ ulterior purposes. The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Taendsticksfabriks Akticbolagat Vulcan v. MyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Phenix Cheese Co. v. KirpAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  3. Dobbs & Co. v. Cobbs Haberdasher, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. New York World's Fair 1939 Inc. v. World's Fair News, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1937
  2. New York World's Fair 1939 Inc. v. World's Fair News, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  3. Nu-Enamel Corp. v. Armstrong Paint & Varnish WorksCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1938
  4. Clorox Chemical Co. v. Chlorit Mfg. CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1938
  5. Lever Bros. v. J. Eavenson & Sons, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1935

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

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

Powered by the Exa API