Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Roper

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island

Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Roper

124 F. 1019, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5064

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 11, 1903

DocketNo. 2,633

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F. 1019 (Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Roper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Roper, 124 F. 1019, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5064 (circtdri 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, District Judge.

I am of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to a preliminary injunction upon the authority of the following cases: Heaton Peninsular Button Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Cortelyou v. Lowe, 111 Fed. 1005, 49 C. C. A. 671; Tubular Rivet & Steel Co. v. O’Brien (C. C.) 93 Fed. 200. See, also, Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. The Fair (decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, January session, 1903) 123 Fed. 424; Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 90, 22 Sup. Ct. 747, 46 L. Ed. 1058. A preliminary injunction in the form prayed for, however, would be too broad, since it would cover the making and selling of duplicating ink for legitmate purposes, and sales in which the complainants’ right would not be either directly or indirectly infringed. A decree may be presented so limited as to obviate this objection, and otherwise framed according to the prayer of the biU.

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

BROWN, District Judge.

I am of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to a preliminary injunction upon the authority of the following cases: Heaton Peninsular Button Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728; Cortelyou v. Lowe, 111 Fed. 1005, 49 C. C. A. 671; Tubular Rivet & Steel Co. v. O’Brien (C. C.) 93 Fed. 200. See, also, Victor Talking Machine Co. et al. v. The Fair (decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, January session, 1903) 123 Fed. 424; Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 90, 22 Sup. Ct. 747, 46 L. Ed. 1058. A preliminary injunction in the form prayed for, however, would be too broad, since it would cover the making and selling of duplicating ink for legitmate purposes, and sales in which the complainants’ right would not be either directly or indirectly infringed. A decree may be presented so limited as to obviate this objection, and otherwise framed according to the prayer of the biU.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. 1019, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodrick-copygraph-co-v-roper-circtdri-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack