Legal Opinion
King Pharr Canning Operations, Inc. v. Pharr Canning Co.
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Decided June 13, 1949No. Civ. 777PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN E. MILLER, District Judge.
Discussion.
Defendant asserts that the trademark “King Pharr” being merely the name of a deceased person in simple block letters, not printed in a distinctive manner, is invalid, and that defendant has suffered damage by the purported registration. Validity of a trade-mark and proper registration, plaintiff’s mark' was registered under Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 533, are not synonymous, and in fact, the registration by plaintiff in 1945 was a mere formality so far as the-merits of this case are concerned -and did not purport, and plaintiff does not so contend, to…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Donnell v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- John R. Thompson Co., Doing Business as and Through Its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Holloway House, Inc. v. Mrs. Lee Holloway, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Nationwide Independent Directory Service, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1974
- S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Phil J. Johnson and Hugh H. Johnson, D.B.A. Johnson Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1959
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Liberty Ins. Co. of Tex.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1960
- Gaston's White River Resort v. RushDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1988
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.