L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.
197 F. 536, 117 C.C.A. 32, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1311
Opinion
It is equitable that the penholders which the defendant has in good faith marked in accordance with Judge Hand’s-decree with the .suffix “not connected with the original Waterman 'pen,” or in accordance with the opinion of. this court before the use of the name “Arthur” was required, should • be permitted to be; sold and the order for the mandate may so provide.
The application for further changes in the order is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 197 F. 536, 117 C.C.A. 32, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1311 (2d Cir. 1912).
197 F. 536 (L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.
235 U.S. 88 (Supreme Court, 1914)