Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Post & Lester Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | 1,263. |
| Citation | 163 F. 63 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | PREST-O-LITE CO. v. POST & LESTER CO. |
Winter & Winter, for complainant.
Gross Hyde & Shipman, for defendant.
The acts complained of at this hearing are enough like those appearing in the suit in the federal court in the Northern District of New York between this complainant and the Avery Lighting Company, decided on May 19, 1908 (161 F. 648), so that Judge Ray's action should be followed, if he was right, unless the complainant has by its own acts lost some of its rights. In that respect the difference relied upon by the defendant is that the complainant and defendant's principal, the Puritan Gas Company, entered into an agreement about this general matter on March 7, 1908. It is seriously contended that the terms of that contract materially modify the relation between the parties. It is my duty to interpret that contract, and to discover whether it does put this defendant on any better footing than the other defendant occupied at the hearing before Judge Ray. The things which this defendant has done are manifestly beyond the spirit and the letter of that agreement, and were conceded to be so, by the defendant, at the hearing. The only question open for debate is as to whether the defendant can, in fairness, adopt any course in the treatment of complainant's tanks less drastic than that demanded by the complainant.
The defendant calls the agreement of March 7, 1908, a 'license agreement.' It is inartificially drawn, but I am unable to spell out of it anything which bears out in a general way the proposition that it was intended by the parties to have the effect of a license. It shows that each party recognized the validity of the other's trade-mark and understood that the placing thereof on a plate attached to the steel cylinder signified to the world that the tank and its contents were the product of the party owning the trade-mark and served to distinguish the product from that of other manufacturers. It is plainly agreed that neither shall infringe the rights of the other, and it shows that neither party intended to so treat the other's tanks as that any mistake could arise in the mind of any one as to what the tanks and contents in fact were.
They agree definitely that neither will use the labeled tanks of the other without removing or obliterating the label, or otherwise indicating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Heiden
... ... v. Davis (D.C.) 209 ... F. 917, 922, 923, 924; Prest-O-Lite Co. v. H. W. Bogen ... (C.C.) 209 F. 915, 916; Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Post & ... Lester Co. (C.C.) 163 F. 63, 64. Unless this court was ... thoroughly convinced that these decisions were erroneous, it ... would be its ... ...
-
Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville
... ... by Judge Cross. Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Avery Lighting ... Co., 161 F. 648 (C.C.N.D.N.Y.); Prest-O-Lite Co. v ... Post & Lester Co., 163 F. 63 (C.C.D. Conn.); ... Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bogen, 209 F. 915 (C.C.S.D ... cal.); Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Davis, 209 F. 917 ... ...
-
Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville
... ... been considered. It is impossible to ascertain, from the ... opinion in Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Post & Lester (C.C.) ... 163 F. 63, whether the court proceeded on the theory that the ... defendant's acts constituted unfair competition or an ... ...