Pontefact v. Isenberger
106 F. 499, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4760
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided December 21, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
This cause has been submitted upon an agreed s tat ('men I: of facts. It shows that the plaintiffs have the sole right to the use of the trade-mark “Golden Wedding,” as applied [500] to the whisky of their production, and that the defendant has refilled the plaintiffs’ barrels carrying the trade-mark, to palm off his product as that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to a decree according to the terms of the stipulation. Decree for plaintiffs for $350, according to stipulation.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pontefact v. Isenberger, 106 F. 499, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4760 (circtsdny 1900).
106 F. 499 (Pontefact v. Isenberger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Soy Food Mills, Inc. v. Pillsbury Mills, Inc.
161 F.2d 22 (Seventh Circuit, 1947)
Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville
260 F. 442 (D. New Jersey, 1915)
Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co.
215 F. 692 (Seventh Circuit, 1914)
Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Avery Lighting Co.
161 F. 648 (N.D. New York, 1908)