Summary

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Hutchinson Pierce Company v. Loewy…

The circuit court held that defendant's trademark or brand was clearly distinguishable from that of complainant, and said:
'There is no reasonable probability of the ordinary purchaser being deceived into buying the defendant's manufacture as that of complainant. The rule is well established that a trademark, word, or symbol has the elements of a property right, and may not be unlawfully used by a rival in business, either alone or as an accessory to such prior appropriation
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Hutchinson Pierce Company v. Loewy…

This was a bill in equity for an injunction and accounting, the complainant alleging the defendant had infringed its technical trademark applied to shirts, and also was guilty of unfair competition. As complainant is a corporation of the state of New York and defendant is a citizen of the same state, the court's jurisdiction extends only to the use of the registered trademark in commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and the Indian tribes.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature