Flintkote Co. v. Philip Carey Co.
Decision Date | 09 June 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 3697.,3697. |
Parties | FLINTKOTE CO. v. PHILIP CAREY CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
A. F. Reichmann, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Henry Russell Platt, of Chicago, Ill., and Alfred C. Cassatt, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
Before EVANS, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Should this court disturb the ruling of the District Court in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction, sought upon affidavits, exhibits, and pleadings? The District Judge, in passing upon the question, said:
Many interesting questions have been very ably argued in the briefs of respective counsel, and their solution challenges our interest and invites a discussion. After careful consideration of all of them, we are convinced that it would be a mistake to decide any of them upon the record before us. Certainly several of them cannot be disposed of finally without a full trial on the merits.
Our duty is well defined in Meccano, Limited, v. John Wanamaker, 253 U. S. 136, 40 S. Ct. 463, 64 L. Ed. 822; Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co., 56 F. 718, 6 C. C. A. 100; American Cereal Co. v. Eli Pettijohn Cereal Co., 76 F. 372, 22 C. C. A. 236.
To justify the issuance of a temporary injunction in a suit brought on a patent, or a breach of a license agreement, or to enjoin unfair methods of competition, plaintiff's case should be a clear one, free from reasonable doubts. Before the District Court's ruling will be reversed, the record on appeal must disclose an improvident exercise of judicial discretion or a violation of some rule of equity.
Upon all three of plaintiff's theories we are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.
...Leavitt v. McBee Co., 124 F.2d 938, 939-940 (1 Cir. 1942); Hoeme v. Jeoffroy, 100 F.2d 225, 226 (5 Cir. 1938); Flintkote Co. v. Philip Carey Co., 13 F.2d 850 (7 Cir. 1926); Stoody Co. v. Osage Metal Co., 95 F.2d 592, 593 (10 Cir. 1938); Pacific Cage & Screen Co. v. Continental Cage Corp., 2......
-
Farm Service, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...98 F.2d 578 (3rd Cir. 1938); Atlantic Monthly Co. v. Frederick Ungar Pub. Co., 185 F.Supp. 221 (S.D.N.Y.1960); Flintkote Co. v. Philip Carey Co., 13 F.2d 850 (7th Cir. 1926); Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition and Trademarks, § 88.3(a); 87 C.J.S. Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Com......
-
Mayview Corp. v. Rodstein
...Pacific Cage & Screen Co. v. Continental Cage Corp. (9 Cir. 1958), 259 F.2d 87, 88 (per curiam) (dicta); Flintkote Co. v. Philip Carey Co. (7 Cir. 1926), 13 F.2d 850 (per curiam). However, once validity is established by a showing of public acquiescence or prior adjudication, and infringeme......
-
Stoody Co. v. Osage Metal Co.
...Electric Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 275 F. 158; National Cash Register Co. v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 286 F. 367; Flintkote Co. v. Philip Carey Co., 7 Cir., 13 F.2d 850. 3 See Haynes Stellite Company v. Stoody Company, 9 Cir., 94 F.2d ...