Low v. Fels

U.S. Circuit Court

Low v. Fels

35 F. 361, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2470

CourtUnited States Circuit Court

DecidedApril 20, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 35 F. 361 (Low v. Fels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Low v. Fels, 35 F. 361, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2470 (uscirct 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

JButijsr, J.

The complainants are not entitled to an account. For nearly four years prior to the date of suit they had notice that their trade-mark was in. common use by dealers in soaps in this country, and [363]*363did nothing to prevent it until about the time of filing this bill. The respondent’s acts complained of fall within the interval specified. Furthermore, such use had been practiced by all the principal dealers in soaps here for nearly 20 years prior to the date of suit: and the complainants, dealing in the markets of this country, as they were, should he presumed to have knowledge of this fact. If they had not, it was because of indifference to their interests, or lack of vigilance. There is no evidence of fraud on the respondent’s part. He did not even know of the complainants’ existence, or of the existence of the rights they set up. To hold him liable to account for his past sales, and damages to the complainants, in view of such laches, would he unjust. He concedes the complainants’ right to an injunction, and an injunction will therefore be granted.

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

JButijsr, J.

The complainants are not entitled to an account. For nearly four years prior to the date of suit they had notice that their trade-mark was in. common use by dealers in soaps in this country, and [363]*363did nothing to prevent it until about the time of filing this bill. The respondent’s acts complained of fall within the interval specified. Furthermore, such use had been practiced by all the principal dealers in soaps here for nearly 20 years prior to the date of suit: and the complainants, dealing in the markets of this country, as they were, should he presumed to have knowledge of this fact. If they had not, it was because of indifference to their interests, or lack of vigilance. There is no evidence of fraud on the respondent’s part. He did not even know of the complainants’ existence, or of the existence of the rights they set up. To hold him liable to account for his past sales, and damages to the complainants, in view of such laches, would he unjust. He concedes the complainants’ right to an injunction, and an injunction will therefore be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F. 361, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/low-v-fels-uscirct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack