TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Apollinaris Brunnen v. Somborn

Apollinaris Brunnen v. Somborn, 1 F. Cas. 1067 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
January 16, 1878
Judges
Wheeler
Citations
1 F. Cas. 106714 Blatchf. 3801878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1604
Headnotes
Case No. 496. Trade-Marks — Arbitrary Words — Ixfrwge-mext. The use, on labels and bottles, of the word ApoIIinis, in connection with the representation of a bow and arrow or anchor, was restrained, by preliminary injunction, on account of the similarity between them and the word Apollinaris and the representation of an anchor. as before used by the plaintiff, as being calculated and designed to induce the supposition, by users and dealers, that the waters of the defendant. so marked, were the waters of the nlaintiff; but the plaintiff was ordered to give a bond to pay all damages to the defendant, if it should be finally determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction. [Cited in Cien Cove Manuf’g Co. v. Ludel-ing, 22 Fed. 826.] [See McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245; Carbolic Soap Co. v. Thompson, 25 Fed. 625; Hostetter v. Vowinkle, C.me No. 6,714.]
Summary
In equity.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wheeler

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WHEELER, District Judge.

Upon the hearing of the motion of the orator for a preliminary injunction in this cause, it is considered, that the use, by the defendants, on their labels and bottles, of the word “Apol-linis,” in connection with the representation of a bow and arrow, or anchor, as used by them, on account of the similarity between them and the word “Apollinaris” and the representation of an anchor, as before used by the orator, is calculated to lead those using and dealing in such waters, to suppose that the waters of the defendants, so marked, are the waters of the orator; and, as there is no other reason apparent, that the use of these .symbols was adopted for that purpose. Wherefore, it is ordered, that, upon the filing a bond to the defendants, in such penal sum ns shall be fixed by the clerk, as a master of this court, with good surety approved by him, conditioned for the payment of all damages to the defendants, in case it shall finally be determined, in this cause, that the orator is not entitled to this injunction, a writ of injunction do issue, to restrain the defendants from the further use of the word “Apollinis,” and such representation of an anchor, or bow and arrow, in connection with the sale •of their waters, until further order in the premises.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1885–1886: 11899–1900: 11919–1920: 118852026peak 1885 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Luckel, King & Cake Soap Co.102 F. 327 (9th Cir. 1900)
  2. Glen Cove Manuf'g Co. v. Ludeling22 F. 823 (1885)
  3. Garrett & Co. v. A. Schmidt, Jr., & Bros. Wine Co.256 F. 943 (N.D. Ohio 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list