H. M. Kolbe Co. v. Shaff

Second Circuit

H. M. Kolbe Co. v. Shaff

352 F.2d 285

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1965

DocketNo. 100 Docket 29839

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 285 (H. M. Kolbe Co. v. Shaff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

H. M. Kolbe Co. v. Shaff, 352 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court the injunction granted by Judge Levet. The appeal from the other parts of the order is dismissed. Reeve Music Co., Inc. v. Crest Records, Inc., 2 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 546. As an aftermath of H. M. Kolbe Co., Inc. v. Armgus Textile Company, 2 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 70, 99 A.L.R.2d 390, Happy Cottons, Inc., the unsuccessful appellant in that case, became inactive and without assets to satisfy the judgment against it. Accordingly, this new action was brought against Gustave Shaff who is alleged to have been the guiding spirit and the “active, conscious force” behind the infringement by Happy Cottons, Inc. While various contentions of a more or less technical nature are advanced in favor of reversal of the summary judgment granted against appellant, we do not find any of them persuasive. As the order is plainly interlocutory our affirmance is limited to the injunction provisions of the order.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court the injunction granted by Judge Levet. The appeal from the other parts of the order is dismissed. Reeve Music Co., Inc. v. Crest Records, Inc., 2 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 546. As an aftermath of H. M. Kolbe Co., Inc. v. Armgus Textile Company, 2 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 70, 99 A.L.R.2d 390, Happy Cottons, Inc., the unsuccessful appellant in that case, became inactive and without assets to satisfy the judgment against it. Accordingly, this new action was brought against Gustave Shaff who is alleged to have been the guiding spirit and the “active, conscious force” behind the infringement by Happy Cottons, Inc. While various contentions of a more or less technical nature are advanced in favor of reversal of the summary judgment granted against appellant, we do not find any of them persuasive. As the order is plainly interlocutory our affirmance is limited to the injunction provisions of the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 F.2d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-m-kolbe-co-v-shaff-ca2-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack