Société Anonyme, etc., Benedictine v. Hygrade Wine Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Société Anonyme, etc., Benedictine v. Hygrade Wine Co.

173 F. 796, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5911

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedAugust 6, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F. 796 (Société Anonyme, etc., Benedictine v. Hygrade Wine Co.) 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

Société Anonyme, etc., Benedictine v. Hygrade Wine Co., 173 F. 796, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5911 (circtsdny 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

As to so much of the case as is not disputed upon affidavits, it appears that the liqueur sold by defendant is manufactured by the “A. de Claremont Company” and is sold by defendant with the label stating origin, which this court ordered to be affixed to the bottles sold by the Claremont Company as a condition for denying preliminary injunction in the suit against it. To refuse to allow a resale of the articles once sold in conformity with such order, the [797]*797label being unchanged, would practically amount to a modification of the former order by restricting the sale of Claremont goods.

For this reason, only, application for preliminary injunction is denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

As to so much of the case as is not disputed upon affidavits, it appears that the liqueur sold by defendant is manufactured by the “A. de Claremont Company” and is sold by defendant with the label stating origin, which this court ordered to be affixed to the bottles sold by the Claremont Company as a condition for denying preliminary injunction in the suit against it. To refuse to allow a resale of the articles once sold in conformity with such order, the [797]*797label being unchanged, would practically amount to a modification of the former order by restricting the sale of Claremont goods.

For this reason, only, application for preliminary injunction is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F. 796, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/societe-anonyme-etc-benedictine-v-hygrade-wine-co-circtsdny-1909.