New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air-Cell Covering Co.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1900 |
| Docket Number | 23. |
| Citation | 102 F. 890 |
| Parties | NEW YORK ASBESTOS MFG. CO. v. AMBLER ASBESTOS AIR-CELL COVERING CO. et. al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Henry Schreiter, for appellant.
Henry N. Paul, Jr., and Joseph C. Fraley, for appellees.
Before ACHESON and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, entered on the 3d day of February, 1900, denying appellant's motion for preliminary injunction, as prayed for in the bill of complaint. The suit is brought by appellant, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, against the appellees, the Ambler Asbestos Air Cell Covering Company, chartered by the state of Pennsylvania, and the other named defendants, as officers thereof. The bill charges respondents with acts of unfair and fraudulent competition in trade, and also with infringement of trade-marks; but, in the argument, counsel for appellant disclaimed reliance on this charge, and confined themselves to the contention as to unfair and fraudulent competition in trade. The motion for preliminary injunction was made upon the pleadings, bill of complaint, answer, and replication and upon the affidavits and exhibits submitted with the moving papers; and it is the appeal from the refusal of the court below to grant a preliminary injunction that is now before this court.
The granting of a preliminary injunction in except in a case clearly demanding it; and the decision of a court of first instance, refusing such an injunction, will not, except for very strong reasons, be reversed by this court. The unfair and fraudulent competition alleged, and sought to be supported by affidavits and exhibits submitted with the moving papers, is the use by defendants of the words 'air cell' and 'fireboard' in designating certain fireproof material manufactured and sold by them. The value of air, as a nonconductor of heat, has long been known, and its utilization in nonconducting coverings for boilers, and other appliances for the interception of and protection from heat, antedates its sue by either complainant or defendants. A careful examination of the pleadings and affidavits printed in the record fails to convince us of the propriety of issuing a preliminary injunction on the ground that the use made by defendants of the words 'air cell' and 'fireboard', in designating their product, amounted to a fraud on complainant or the public, or to unfair competition in trade; and this, without prejudice to any determination to be hereafter made by the court below of the issues involved, upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc.
...action of the trial judge is clearly contrary to reason and not justified by the evidence"; New York Asbestos Manufacturing Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air-Cell Covering Company, 102 F. 890 (3 Cir. 1900), quoted in Murray Hill Restaurant v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, 98 F.2d 578, 579 (3 Cir. 19......
-
Gamlen Chemical Co. v. Gamlen
...of a very far reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it. New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air Cell Covering Co., 3 Cir., 102 F. 890; Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, 3 Cir., 15 F.2d 16; Murray Hill Restaurant v. Thirteen Twenty......
-
Meiselman v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.
...exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it. New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air Cell Cov. Co., 3 Cir., 102 F. 890; Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, 3 Cir., 15 F.2d 16; Murray Hill Restaurant v. Thirteen T......
-
Gantt v. Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina
...exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it. New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air Cell Cov. Co., 3 Cir., 102 F. 890; Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, 3 Cir., 15 F.2d 16; Murray Hill Restaurant v. Thirteen T......