Landith Laboratories, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.

S.D. New York

Landith Laboratories, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.

35 F. Supp. 616, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2307

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedOctober 4, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 F. Supp. 616 (Landith Laboratories, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Landith Laboratories, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 35 F. Supp. 616, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2307 (S.D.N.Y. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

This case is too doubtful to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction. There are numerous instances of the use of the word “Cue” and the letter “Q” as trademarks ' for different products. The most, therefore, that the plaintiff can hope to protect is its right to use the mark on its particular products. Pabst Brewing ' Co. v. Decatur Brewing Co., 7 Cir., 284 F. 110; Anheuser-Busch v. Budweiser Malt Products Corp., 2 Cir., 295 F. 306; France Milling Co. v. Washburn-Crosby Co., 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 268 U.S. 706, 45 S.Ct. 640, 69 L.Ed. 1168. These. products are different in character from the defendant’s liquid dentifrice. Moreover, the facts are in dispute, and there is no showing of injury to the plaintiff.

The motion of the plaintiff for a preliminary injunction is denied.

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

COXE, District Judge.

This case is too doubtful to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction. There are numerous instances of the use of the word “Cue” and the letter “Q” as trademarks ' for different products. The most, therefore, that the plaintiff can hope to protect is its right to use the mark on its particular products. Pabst Brewing ' Co. v. Decatur Brewing Co., 7 Cir., 284 F. 110; Anheuser-Busch v. Budweiser Malt Products Corp., 2 Cir., 295 F. 306; France Milling Co. v. Washburn-Crosby Co., 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 268 U.S. 706, 45 S.Ct. 640, 69 L.Ed. 1168. These. products are different in character from the defendant’s liquid dentifrice. Moreover, the facts are in dispute, and there is no showing of injury to the plaintiff.

The motion of the plaintiff for a preliminary injunction is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F. Supp. 616, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landith-laboratories-inc-v-colgate-palmolive-peet-co-nysd-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack