Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols

155 F. 302, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5258
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJune 19, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 155 F. 302 (Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Havana Commercial Co. v. Nichols, 155 F. 302, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5258 (circtsdny 1907).

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This seems to be a properly registered trade-mark, under the act of 1905. It is not the “name of an individual” ; at least the court is informed of no individual, historical or other, whose name was or is “La Carolina,” and neither the affidavits nor the briefs disclose the existence of any such person. Nor is it a “geographical name or term.” Defendant’s counsel was unable upon the argument to identify geographically any place as “La Carolina,” although reference was made to North Carolina and South Carolina and to the Caroline Islands. . The term “La Coralina” is manifestly an infringement. The mere transposition of the vowels “a” and “o” effects a change hardly appreciable by either the eye or the ear.

It appears, "however, by defendants’ affidavits, that they began the . puting up and selling of cigars under that term 19 years ago, that they advertised them extensively, and that their sales have been large and-continuous. Complainant asserts that this was without the knowledge [303]*303•of itself or its predecessors; but it is thought that all questions can better be determined at final hearing upon pleadings and proofs, when the facts will be more satisfactorily presented. It is no doubt well settled that mere delay or acquiescence will not defeat the remedy by ■injunction, although it may debar complainant from any recovery of profits or damages. Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S. 514, 9 Sup. Ct. 143, 32 L. Ed. 526. But such laches may, in proper cases, afford good ground for further delay in putting a stop by injunction to an established business.

It would seem that the equities can be more satisfactorily considered at final hearing than upon motion on affidavits, and for that reason the present application is denied.

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

Related

LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.
157 F.2d 115 (Second Circuit, 1946)
In Re Plymouth Motor Corporation
46 F.2d 211 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc. v. Winchester Co.
300 F. 706 (Second Circuit, 1924)
Wesson v. Galef
286 F. 621 (S.D. New York, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 F. 302, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/havana-commercial-co-v-nichols-circtsdny-1907.