French v. Alter & Julian Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio

French v. Alter & Julian Co.

74 F. 788, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2728

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio·Decided June 1, 1896·No. No. 4,895·Published

Opinion

SAGE, District Judge.

The motion for a temporary injunction is overruled, for the reason that affidavits filed on behalf of defendants indicate prior use of the trade-mark claimed by complainants. Whether such prior use is established, and, if so, whether it was limited and has been abandoned, is in dispute, and need not now be determined. It is sufficient to say that, the complainants’ title to the [789] trade-mark not having been established by adjudication, and being now called in question, the doubt is enough to authorize the court, in its discretion, to refuse a temporary injunction, and leave the question for determination upon the final hearing.

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

SAGE, District Judge.

The motion for a temporary injunction is overruled, for the reason that affidavits filed on behalf of defendants indicate prior use of the trade-mark claimed by complainants. Whether such prior use is established, and, if so, whether it was limited and has been abandoned, is in dispute, and need not now be determined. It is sufficient to say that, the complainants’ title to the [789] trade-mark not having been established by adjudication, and being now called in question, the doubt is enough to authorize the court, in its discretion, to refuse a temporary injunction, and leave the question for determination upon the final hearing.

French v. Alter & Julian Co., 74 F. 788, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2728 (circtsdoh 1896).

Pincite

74 F. 788 (French v. Alter & Julian Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.