Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., and Helene Curtis Sales, Inc., C. v. Layden, Doing Business as South-Western Beauty Products Company, Plaintiff-Intervener v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Gillette Company, Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, Plaintiffs-Interveners v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary v. C. v. Layden, Doing Business as South-Western Beauty Products Company, Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary v. Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, and the Gillette Company

254 F.2d 470
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 1958
Docket24524-24527
StatusPublished

This text of 254 F.2d 470 (Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., and Helene Curtis Sales, Inc., C. v. Layden, Doing Business as South-Western Beauty Products Company, Plaintiff-Intervener v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Gillette Company, Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, Plaintiffs-Interveners v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary v. C. v. Layden, Doing Business as South-Western Beauty Products Company, Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary v. Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, and the Gillette Company) 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
Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., and Helene Curtis Sales, Inc., C. v. Layden, Doing Business as South-Western Beauty Products Company, Plaintiff-Intervener v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Gillette Company, Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, Plaintiffs-Interveners v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary v. C. v. Layden, Doing Business as South-Western Beauty Products Company, Sales Affiliates, Inc., the Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary v. Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, and the Gillette Company, 254 F.2d 470 (2d Cir. 1958).

Opinion

254 F.2d 470

117 U.S.P.Q. 110

HELENE CURTIS INDUSTRIES, Inc., and Helene Curtis Sales,
Inc., Plaintiffs, C. V. Layden, doing business as
South-western Beauty Products Company,
Plaintiff-Intervener,
v.
SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Defendant.
The GILLETTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Skillern & Sons, Inc., and
Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, Plaintiffs-Interveners,
v.
SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Defendant.
SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Plaintiff, The Procter & Gamble
Company, Involuntary Plaintiff,
v.
C. V. LAYDEN, doing business as South-western Beauty
Products Company, Defendant.
SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Plaintiff, The Procter & Gamble
Company, Involuntary Plaintiff,
v.
SKILLERN & SONS, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas,
and The Gillette Company, Defendants.

Nos. 24524-24527.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

March 19, 1958.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (Bruce Bromley, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Halpin, Keogh & St. John, New York City (Eugene J. Keogh, New York City, of counsel), for Sales Affiliates, Inc.

Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City (Theodore S. Kenyon, New York City, of counsel), for Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., et al.

Henry B. Ashton, New York City (Edgar H. Kent and Rynn Berry, New York City, of counsel), for The Gillette Co.

Hawkins Delafield & Wood, New York City (Clarence Fried, New York City, of counsel), for Skillern & Sons, Inc., et al.

HINCKS and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

The motion to recall the mandate and clarify the opinion and judgment is denied, the moving party to pay the costs of printing the plaintiffs' brief. There is no merit whatsoever to the contention of the defendant Sales Affiliates, Inc. Judge Kaufman, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 582, has correctly interpreted our opinion and it needs no clarification. This is the second such motion to delay the proceedings. It is desirable that the District Court proceed forthwith in accordance with our opinion, 247 F.2d 940, filed on September 5, 1957.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 F.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helene-curtis-industries-inc-and-helene-curtis-sales-inc-c-v-ca2-1958.