Auto Parts Co. v. Silverstein

Appellate Court of Illinois

Auto Parts Co. v. Silverstein

211 Ill. App. 436

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 14, 1918

DocketGen. No. 23,594

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 211 Ill. App. 436 (Auto Parts Co. v. Silverstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auto Parts Co. v. Silverstein, 211 Ill. App. 436 (Ill. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Trade-marks and trade names, § 23* — when relief granted against use of generic or descriptive name. While names which are generic terms or merely descriptive are the common property of the public, and a private property interest cannot be acquired, relief will be granted where a name of this character has been adopted under circumstances which make it appear that the purpose of adopting such name was to mislead the general public. 3. Trade-marks and trade names, § 22* — what is duty of trader adopting trade name similar to one in use. Regardless of fraudulent intent or actual injury, it is the duty of a subsequent trader to adopt affirmative precautions sufficient to make confusion and deception in the use of a similar trade name improbable. 4. Trade-marks and trade names, § 24* — what constitutes unfair competition in use of corporate name. The use of the name “Auto Sales and Parts Company” held to constitute unfair competition as to an older and established concern trading, under the name “Auto Parts Company,” there being evidence that confusion resulted and no evidence of an innocent intention in making use of a name so similar. 5. Appeal and error, § 1399* — when findings of master not disturbed. Findings of the master approved by the chancellor will not be set aside unless clearly and manifestly against the weight of evidence. 6. Equity, § 404* — when amount of costs taxed for master's fees may not be complained of. The fact that the costs taxed for master’s fees are in excess of the amount requested by the master affords no ground for complaint where they are much less than the statutory fees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Trade-marks and trade names, § 23* — when relief granted against use of generic or descriptive name. While names which are generic terms or merely descriptive are the common property of the public, and a private property interest cannot be acquired, relief will be granted where a name of this character has been adopted under circumstances which make it appear that the purpose of adopting such name was to mislead the general public. 3. Trade-marks and trade names, § 22* — what is duty of trader adopting trade name similar to one in use. Regardless of fraudulent intent or actual injury, it is the duty of a subsequent trader to adopt affirmative precautions sufficient to make confusion and deception in the use of a similar trade name improbable. 4. Trade-marks and trade names, § 24* — what constitutes unfair competition in use of corporate name. The use of the name “Auto Sales and Parts Company” held to constitute unfair competition as to an older and established concern trading, under the name “Auto Parts Company,” there being evidence that confusion resulted and no evidence of an innocent intention in making use of a name so similar. 5. Appeal and error, § 1399* — when findings of master not disturbed. Findings of the master approved by the chancellor will not be set aside unless clearly and manifestly against the weight of evidence. 6. Equity, § 404* — when amount of costs taxed for master's fees may not be complained of. The fact that the costs taxed for master’s fees are in excess of the amount requested by the master affords no ground for complaint where they are much less than the statutory fees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 Ill. App. 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auto-parts-co-v-silverstein-illappct-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack