National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Drying Mach. Co., 11639-11641.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 11639-11641.,11639-11641. |
| Citation | 228 F.2d 349 |
| Parties | NATIONAL DRYER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and National Dryer Sales Corporation, Appellants, v. The NATIONAL DRYING MACHINERY COMPANY. NATIONAL DRYER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and National Dryer Sales Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The NATIONAL DRYING MACHINERY CO., Defendant-Appellant. The NATIONAL DRYING MACHINERY COMPANY v. Jack ACKOFF, Individually and Trading as Jack Ackoff Company, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
James E. Gallagher, Jr., and Daniel Mungall, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants National Dryer Mfg. Corp., Nat'l. Dryer Sales Corp., Jack Ackoff and Jack Ackoff Co.
Louis Necho, Philadelphia, Pa., for Nat'l. Drying Mach. Co.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
These three appeals arise out of two cases which were consolidated for trial In No. 11,641, National Drying Machinery sued Jack Ackoff, individually and trading as Jack Ackoff Company, as distributor for National Dryer Manufacturing Corporation and National Dryer Sales Corporation. That suit was started on July 23, 1953. It charged Ackoff with unfair competition and trade-mark infringement in the use of the word "National" in connection with the sale of an electric hot air hand dryer. On March 12, 1954, the manufacturing corporation and the sales corporation sued the machinery company seeking a declaratory judgment that they were not violating any rights of the machinery company and an injunction against the latter from using the word "National" in the hand dryer field. The machinery company in its answer and counterclaim asserted its right to the use of the word "National" on drying machines and asked for an injunction against the manufacturing and sales corporations including restraint from using the word "National" as a trade-mark for any type of drying machines.
In both cases Chief Judge Kirkpatrick decided that the machinery company is the sole owner of the trade-mark National as applied to drying machines. Ackoff in No. 11,641 and the manufacturing and sales corporations in No. 11,639 were held to have infringed the statutory and the common law rights of the machinery company. They were all perpetually enjoined from selling or in any way dealing with drying machines under the trademark National or any business name which includes the word National. In the second suit, originally the decree ordered the manufacturing and sales...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red Devil Tools v. Tip Top Brush Co.
...867, 74 S.Ct. 106, 98 L.Ed. 377 (1953); National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Drying Mach. Co., 136 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 228 F.2d 349 (3 Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 906, 76 S.Ct. 694, 100 L.Ed. 1442 (1956); Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. G. D. Searle & Co., 253 F.2d 390 (3 Cir.......
-
Microsoft Corp. v. CMOS Technologies, Inc., Civ. A. No. 93-2252 (AMW).
...be denied where an injunction forbidding future infringing acts satisfies the equities of the case. National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Drying Mach. Co., 228 F.2d 349 (3d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 906, 76 S.Ct. 694, 696, 100 L.Ed. 1442 (1956); Taussig v. Wellington Fund Inc., 313......
-
A & H Sportswear Co. v. Victoria's Secret Stores
...denied where an injunction forbidding future infringing acts satisfies the equities of the case. See National Dryer Mfg. Corp. v. National Drying Mach. Co., 228 F.2d 349, 350 (3d Cir.1955); Microsoft Corp. v. CMOS Tech., Inc., 872 F.Supp. 1329, 1336-37 (D.N.J.1994) (citations omitted). The ......
-
National Automobile Club v. National Auto Club, Inc.
...Steel Construction, 442 F.2d 1383 (CCPA 1971); The National Drying Machinery Co. v. Ackoff, 129 F.Supp. 389 (E.D.Pa. 1955), aff'd, 228 F.2d 349 (3rd Cir. 1955). The word "national" has been used many times to describe many types of products and services. "National" is a geographic term desc......