Schering & Glatz, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Schering & Glatz, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Co.

185 N.E. 109, 261 N.Y. 304, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 1285

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 N.E. 109 (Schering & Glatz, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schering & Glatz, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Co., 185 N.E. 109, 261 N.Y. 304, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 1285 (N.Y. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

*308 Per Curiam.

In respect to the first and second counterclaims, we think that they set up sufficient facts to constitute causes of action to restrain acts of unfair competition; that they were properly interposed, notwithstanding the fact that they seek to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with its sales of “ other products ” than suppositories, since such interference is " connected with the subject matter of the action.” In respect to the third and fourth counterclaims, they present facts which might properly call for declaratory judgments in respect to the question whether or not the interpleaded defendant held the trade-mark and trade-mark rights for the benefit of the public, so that neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants had exclusive rights to the use thereof.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. All of the questions certified are answered in the affirmative except question seven, which is answered in the negative.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., dissents.

Ordered accordingly.

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

*308 Per Curiam.

In respect to the first and second counterclaims, we think that they set up sufficient facts to constitute causes of action to restrain acts of unfair competition; that they were properly interposed, notwithstanding the fact that they seek to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with its sales of “ other products ” than suppositories, since such interference is " connected with the subject matter of the action.” In respect to the third and fourth counterclaims, they present facts which might properly call for declaratory judgments in respect to the question whether or not the interpleaded defendant held the trade-mark and trade-mark rights for the benefit of the public, so that neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants had exclusive rights to the use thereof.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. All of the questions certified are answered in the affirmative except question seven, which is answered in the negative.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., dissents.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.E. 109, 261 N.Y. 304, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 1285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schering-glatz-inc-v-american-pharmaceutical-co-ny-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack