Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. Eric Hill Co.
This text of 11 F.R.D. 290 (Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. Eric Hill Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendants in their motion misconceive the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint. It is alleged that plaintiff has created a demand, on behalf of the buying public, for its products because of their distinctiveness; that defendants have manufactured identical pills; that defendant 'had knowledge of an established market for plaintiff’s distinctive pill; that defendant intended that the public be deceived and plaintiff injured thereby; and that such deception or “palming off” has occurred. These allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action within the purview of Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
The objection of defendant that certain of these averments are conclusory is not sound. There are no prohibitions in the rules against pleading conclusions.
Motion to dismiss will be overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 F.R.D. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-kline-french-laboratories-v-eric-hill-co-ohnd-1961.