Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Kayser

Second Circuit

Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Kayser

204 F. 778, 123 C.C.A. 590, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1351

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1913

DocketNo. 211

StatusPublished

This text of 204 F. 778 (Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Kayser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Kayser, 204 F. 778, 123 C.C.A. 590, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1351 (2d Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER.CURIAM.

The use of the words “Wunderhose” by the complainant and “Wonderfoot” by the defendant were practically synchronous. The action was commenced by filing the bill of complaint in March, 1911, but the motion for a preliminary injunction was not made until August, 1912, a year and four months thereafter.

The defendant is conceded to be amply responsible for any damages the complainant may recover. No irreparable injury is shown by the complainant, and, in view of the fact that the parties deal in hosiery which differs greatly in material and price, it is not easy to perceive how the complainant can be seriously injured pending the trial.- Other than the fact that both parties deal in hosiery, there is slight similarity in the manner in which their goods are offered for sale, and it is at least doubtful whether any confusion can arise in the minds of the purchasing public regarding them.

The testimony as to unfair competition is indeterminate, but the presumptions are against the proposition that the defendant needed to resort to any unfair methods in selling its high-priced silk stockings in competition with the complainant’s low-priced cotton stock-[779]*779lugs. We do not deem it necessary to decide these questions definitely at this stage of the litigation. It is enough that they are not so clearly established in the complainant’s favor as to warrant the issuing of a preliminary injunction.

Order is affirmed

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

PER.CURIAM.

The use of the words “Wunderhose” by the complainant and “Wonderfoot” by the defendant were practically synchronous. The action was commenced by filing the bill of complaint in March, 1911, but the motion for a preliminary injunction was not made until August, 1912, a year and four months thereafter.

The defendant is conceded to be amply responsible for any damages the complainant may recover. No irreparable injury is shown by the complainant, and, in view of the fact that the parties deal in hosiery which differs greatly in material and price, it is not easy to perceive how the complainant can be seriously injured pending the trial.- Other than the fact that both parties deal in hosiery, there is slight similarity in the manner in which their goods are offered for sale, and it is at least doubtful whether any confusion can arise in the minds of the purchasing public regarding them.

The testimony as to unfair competition is indeterminate, but the presumptions are against the proposition that the defendant needed to resort to any unfair methods in selling its high-priced silk stockings in competition with the complainant’s low-priced cotton stock-[779]*779lugs. We do not deem it necessary to decide these questions definitely at this stage of the litigation. It is enough that they are not so clearly established in the complainant’s favor as to warrant the issuing of a preliminary injunction.

Order is affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 F. 778, 123 C.C.A. 590, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-hosiery-mills-v-kayser-ca2-1913.