Moxie Co. v. Bagoian

D. New Hampshire

Moxie Co. v. Bagoian

197 F. 680, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1477

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire

DecidedJune 22, 1912

DocketNo. 378

StatusPublished

This text of 197 F. 680 (Moxie Co. v. Bagoian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moxie Co. v. Bagoian, 197 F. 680, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1477 (D.N.H. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

ALDRICH, District Judge.

So far as concerns the claim of unfair competition, based upon the ground of visual appearance, and [681]*681the other phases having reference to the manner in which- Bo-La js put upon the market, this case is controlled hy the result reached! in Moxie Co. v. Daniel Daoust, 197 Fed. 678, June 22, 1912.

[1,2] The present case, however, involves an additional phase. The evidence shows that the defendant sometimes served Bo-La jn Moxie glasses, which had been put out by the Moxie Company to him when carrying the Moxie beverage, and in these glasses the word “Moxie” was prominently blown. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that the Moxie Company did not intend these'glasses, furnished to their dealers, to be used in connection with other beverages, and I think the defendant’s use of the glasses was wrongful, and that an injunction should issue under that feature of the bill. The defendant thus prevails upon the substantial branch of the complainant’s case, and fails on that phase which, though wrongful in this particular case, is practically inconsequential, and, as a result, I think there should not be costs either way. A decree will be drawn in accordance with this opinion.

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

ALDRICH, District Judge.

So far as concerns the claim of unfair competition, based upon the ground of visual appearance, and [681]*681the other phases having reference to the manner in which- Bo-La js put upon the market, this case is controlled hy the result reached! in Moxie Co. v. Daniel Daoust, 197 Fed. 678, June 22, 1912.

[1,2] The present case, however, involves an additional phase. The evidence shows that the defendant sometimes served Bo-La jn Moxie glasses, which had been put out by the Moxie Company to him when carrying the Moxie beverage, and in these glasses the word “Moxie” was prominently blown. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that the Moxie Company did not intend these'glasses, furnished to their dealers, to be used in connection with other beverages, and I think the defendant’s use of the glasses was wrongful, and that an injunction should issue under that feature of the bill. The defendant thus prevails upon the substantial branch of the complainant’s case, and fails on that phase which, though wrongful in this particular case, is practically inconsequential, and, as a result, I think there should not be costs either way. A decree will be drawn in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F. 680, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moxie-co-v-bagoian-nhd-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack