Genovese v. Skol Co.

S.D. New York

Genovese v. Skol Co.

73 F. Supp. 423, 65 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 37, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1492

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMarch 8, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 73 F. Supp. 423 (Genovese v. Skol Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Genovese v. Skol Co., 73 F. Supp. 423, 65 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 37, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1492 (S.D.N.Y. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The action is for unfair competition based on an alleged infringement of plaintiffs’ common law trade-mark. Since the trade-mark is not registered, jurisdiction is not conferred in this court under the [424]*424trade-mark laws of the United States. Plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of the court solely on the ground of diversity of citizenship.

This is a motion by one of the defendants, Skol Company, Inc., to dismiss the action as against it on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction.

The complaint states that both of the plaintiffs and defendant, Skol Company, Inc., are residents of New York. The law has been settled since the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435, that to confer federal jurisdiction by reason of diversity, the citizenship of all of the plaintiffs must be different than the citizenship of every defendant. It thus appears from the face of the complaint that this court lacks jurisdiction over the action because the moving defendant has the same citizenship as the plaintiffs.

Without the defendant, Skol Company, Inc., the diversity requirements would be met. Skol Company, Inc., is a proper but not a necessary party. The court in its discretion, can retain jurisdiction of a suit by allowing dismissals as to proper, but not necessary parties 'whose presence would oust the jurisdiction of the court. Thomas v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 223 F. 41, 43.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.

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

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The action is for unfair competition based on an alleged infringement of plaintiffs’ common law trade-mark. Since the trade-mark is not registered, jurisdiction is not conferred in this court under the [424]*424trade-mark laws of the United States. Plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of the court solely on the ground of diversity of citizenship.

This is a motion by one of the defendants, Skol Company, Inc., to dismiss the action as against it on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction.

The complaint states that both of the plaintiffs and defendant, Skol Company, Inc., are residents of New York. The law has been settled since the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435, that to confer federal jurisdiction by reason of diversity, the citizenship of all of the plaintiffs must be different than the citizenship of every defendant. It thus appears from the face of the complaint that this court lacks jurisdiction over the action because the moving defendant has the same citizenship as the plaintiffs.

Without the defendant, Skol Company, Inc., the diversity requirements would be met. Skol Company, Inc., is a proper but not a necessary party. The court in its discretion, can retain jurisdiction of a suit by allowing dismissals as to proper, but not necessary parties 'whose presence would oust the jurisdiction of the court. Thomas v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 223 F. 41, 43.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F. Supp. 423, 65 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 37, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genovese-v-skol-co-nysd-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack