Legal Opinion
Fluidless Non-Tact Lenses, Inc. v. Klear Vision Contact Lens Specialists, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 30, 1958PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS F. MURPHY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs move for an order remanding this cause to the Supreme Court, New York County, from whence it was removed on defendant’s petition.
Defendant’s petition stated: “[T]he allegations and claims in this proceeding relate to a cause of action coming directly under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and it is the contention of the complaint that there has been a usage of false designation of origin or false description or representation including the word or words Non-Tact used as a trademark and in a corporate name which gives rise to a cause of action…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- Magic Foam Sales Corp. v. Mystic Foam Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Hodgson v. Fifth Avenue Plastics, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
3Cited by9 opinions
- La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- La Chemise Lacoste, a French Corporation v. The Alligator Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Third-Party v. Jean Patou, Inc., a New York Corporation, Third-Partydefendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Fischer v. Holiday Inn of Rhinelander, Inc.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1973
- Gardner v. Clark Oil & Refining CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1974
- American Rolex Watch Corp. v. Jack Laufer & Jan Voort, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.