177 Pa. 412
Decided October 5, 1896
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1896-10-05
Appeal, No. 385, Jan. T., 1895, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1893, No. 2, on bill in equity. Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ., dissent. Bill in equity to restrain an alleged fraudulent infringement of a trade-marlc. Tire case was referred to L. PI.
Cited in Ballentine's (1916)’s definition of “Exceptio probat regulam de rebus non exceptis”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1896-10-05
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1938
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1dissenting.
¶2This is a perfectly clear case of a fraudulent effort of appellants to get a part of plaintiff’s trade by such imitation of his boxes, labels, lettering, coloring, etc., as will deceive and mislead intending purchasers. It is an effort which equity ought and usually does enjoin without reference to the strict doctrine of trade-marks. For this reason I would affirm the decree.
¶3' We concur in this dissent.
¶4Dean, J.,
¶5Fell, J.