John Morrell & Co. v. Reliable Packing Co.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
SULLIVAN, District Judge.
This action to recover damages and for an injunction arises from defendant’s alleged misuse of plaintiff’s trade-mark. . The first count of the complaint is based on the Federal Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S. C.A. § 1051 et seq.; the second count claims unfair competition; the third count claims a violation of Chapter 140, § 22, Ill.Rev.Stat.Ann.
Defendant has moved to strike the third count on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the other two, apparently on the theory that the Illinois statute does not apply when the parties to an action are in competition. It is true that that Act applies when the parties are not in competition (HMH Publishing Co., Inc. v. Playboy Records, Inc., D.C.N.D. Ill.1958, 161 F.Supp. 540 ). However, there is nothing in its language restricting it to that situation. In fact, the clause authorizing an injunction includes the phrase “notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties”. This seems to indicate that the legislature feared that the Act might be applied only to competitive situations and wished to make sure that both competitive and *277 mon-competitive facts were covered; and the Illinois Appellate Court has so applied the Act (Adams v. Kassnel, 1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 540 , 148 N.E.2d 818 ).
The defendant’s motion to strike Count III of the complaint will be denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.