Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company v…

The advantage which it would have had, and to which the petitioner has succeeded, is that of having been first and alone for so long in the field. Some of the Halls might have left it and set up for themselves. They might have competed with it, they might have called attention to the fact that they were the sons of the man who started the business, they might have claimed their due share, if any, of the merit in making Hall's safes what they were.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company v…

We are not disposed to make a decree against the Halls personally. That against the company should be more specific. It should forbid the use of the name 'Hall,' either alone or in combination, in corporate name, on safes, or in advertisements, unless accompanied by information that the defendant is not the original Hall's Safe & Lock Company or its successor, or, as the case may be, that the article is not the product of the last-named company or its successors.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature