Coane v. Netter

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Coane v. Netter

188 F. 681, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5214

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 3, 1911

DocketNo. 699

StatusPublished

This text of 188 F. 681 (Coane v. Netter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coane v. Netter, 188 F. 681, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5214 (circtedpa 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHKRSON, District Judge.

[1] So far, as concerns the charge of unfair competition by the use of the label complained of, I do not see that the plaintiff needs protection at present. The defendant has discontinued the use of the label, and I accept his statement that he does not intend to use it again; hut, if he does so use it, the plaintiff has leave to renew this motion. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to entertain the charge of unfair competition — both parties being citizens of Pennsylvania — need not now be determined.

[ 2 | As to the trade-mark, “No. 6,” I am unwilling to decide its validity now. No harm, I think, can be done by deferring the decision until final hearing; but I think the defendant should enter security to respond in damages, if it should be determined hereafter that- the trade-mark is valid and that he has been infringing, before final decree.

It is therefore ordered that the defendant enter security within five days in $1,500. with condition as just stated. If this be done, the clerk will enter an order that the preliminary injunction is refused. If the security be not entered, a preliminary injunction will be granted, restraining the use of the trade-mark “No. 6.”

I may add that one of the judges of the Circuit Court will hear this case at an early date in the fall after issue has been joined; the time to be fixed upon' application.

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

J. B. McPHKRSON, District Judge.

[1] So far, as concerns the charge of unfair competition by the use of the label complained of, I do not see that the plaintiff needs protection at present. The defendant has discontinued the use of the label, and I accept his statement that he does not intend to use it again; hut, if he does so use it, the plaintiff has leave to renew this motion. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to entertain the charge of unfair competition — both parties being citizens of Pennsylvania — need not now be determined.

[ 2 | As to the trade-mark, “No. 6,” I am unwilling to decide its validity now. No harm, I think, can be done by deferring the decision until final hearing; but I think the defendant should enter security to respond in damages, if it should be determined hereafter that- the trade-mark is valid and that he has been infringing, before final decree.

It is therefore ordered that the defendant enter security within five days in $1,500. with condition as just stated. If this be done, the clerk will enter an order that the preliminary injunction is refused. If the security be not entered, a preliminary injunction will be granted, restraining the use of the trade-mark “No. 6.”

I may add that one of the judges of the Circuit Court will hear this case at an early date in the fall after issue has been joined; the time to be fixed upon' application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F. 681, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coane-v-netter-circtedpa-1911.