Pontefact v. Isenberger

106 F. 499, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4760
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedDecember 21, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 106 F. 499 (Pontefact v. Isenberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pontefact v. Isenberger, 106 F. 499, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4760 (circtsdny 1900).

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

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]*500to 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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 F. 499, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pontefact-v-isenberger-circtsdny-1900.