Gordon Hollow Blast Grate Co. v. Gordon

Michigan Supreme Court

Gordon Hollow Blast Grate Co. v. Gordon

105 N.W. 1118, 142 Mich. 488, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 714

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1905

DocketDocket No. 116

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 105 N.W. 1118 (Gordon Hollow Blast Grate Co. v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gordon Hollow Blast Grate Co. v. Gordon, 105 N.W. 1118, 142 Mich. 488, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 714 (Mich. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

The familiar principle that no man has a right to sell or to advertise his business or goods as those of another, and so mislead the public and injure the business of the other, is applied in this case in the decree appealed from. The testimony leads fairly to the conclusion that defendants designed by use of the partnership name, by the connection of the partnership name with the names of articles manufactured by the partnership, and by advertising matter, to mislead the public and to injure the business of complainant, to the profit of the partnership business. To some extent what was designed has been accomplished. The facts are much like those in Penberthy Injector Co. v. Lee, 120 Mich. 174. The decree is claimed to be, and we think is, too broad. Defendants are restrained from claiming to the public that they are manufacturing grates patented by Gordon. They are in fact manufacturing such grates, under letters patent issued subsequently to those protecting the grates made by complainant.

The decree and injunction will be so modified as to per- . mit defendants the right to state the fact that they manufacture a grate under letters patent granted to E. J. Gordon, in connection with the further statement, made equally prominent, that the concern is distinct from and has no connection with the complainant company. In other respects the decree is affirmed. No costs are awarded in this court.

Moore, C. J., 'and McAlvay, Montgomery, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

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

Ostrander, J.

The familiar principle that no man has a right to sell or to advertise his business or goods as those of another, and so mislead the public and injure the business of the other, is applied in this case in the decree appealed from. The testimony leads fairly to the conclusion that defendants designed by use of the partnership name, by the connection of the partnership name with the names of articles manufactured by the partnership, and by advertising matter, to mislead the public and to injure the business of complainant, to the profit of the partnership business. To some extent what was designed has been accomplished. The facts are much like those in Penberthy Injector Co. v. Lee, 120 Mich. 174. The decree is claimed to be, and we think is, too broad. Defendants are restrained from claiming to the public that they are manufacturing grates patented by Gordon. They are in fact manufacturing such grates, under letters patent issued subsequently to those protecting the grates made by complainant.

The decree and injunction will be so modified as to per- . mit defendants the right to state the fact that they manufacture a grate under letters patent granted to E. J. Gordon, in connection with the further statement, made equally prominent, that the concern is distinct from and has no connection with the complainant company. In other respects the decree is affirmed. No costs are awarded in this court.

Moore, C. J., 'and McAlvay, Montgomery, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 N.W. 1118, 142 Mich. 488, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-hollow-blast-grate-co-v-gordon-mich-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack