STEWART
v.
WASHINGTON AND ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court.
This case resembles the preceding, in that it was a suit by a stockholder to restrain a corporation from paying certain taxes. The corporation, its president and treasurer were made defendants. The bill alleges that the two officers reside in the city of Tacoma, in the State of Washington; that to them is entrusted the general control and management of the business of the corporation. Where the directors reside is not shown, and there is no averment of any application to the directors or to the president and treasurer to take action to relieve from the burden of the taxes.. Under these circumstances the District Court properly dismissed the suit, and its judgment is
Aff/rmed.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Shondel v. McDERMOTT, 775 F.2d 859 (7th Cir. 1985)…was itself misleading, such as the trademark “Syrup of Figs” for a laxative that was not in fact a syrup of figs, could not get an injunction against the infringement of his mark. Worden & Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U.S. 516, 528, 539-40, 23 S.Ct. 161, 188, 47 L.Ed. 282 (1903). An injunction would protect his misrepresentation. If the facts of this case brought it within the scope of the “unclean hands” doctrine, it would not matter that the plaintiff was seeking a preliminary rather than a perm…
-
Shatel Corp. v. MAO TA Lumber & Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1983)…ld be used since the ads, which appeared in Yachting Magazine, would be distributed in countries where the mark was registered. The law on “unclean hands” in a trademark ease is well stated in Worden & Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U.S. 516, 23 S.Ct. 161, 47 L.Ed. 282 (1903): [W]hen the owner of a trade-mark applies for an injunction to restrain the defendant from injuring his property by making false representations to the public, it is essential that the plaintiff should not in his trade-mark, or…
-
Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc's B.R. Others, Inc., 826 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1987)…ue.” Ellenburg v. Brockway, Inc., 763 F. 2d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir.1985) (emphasis added). Doc’s relies on two cases in which the trademark for which protection was sought was misleading. Worden & Co. v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U.S. 516, 533-34, 23 S.Ct. 161, 166, 47 L.Ed. 282 (1903) (laxative name “Syrup of Figs” unprotectable where product contains no figs or fig juice); Haagen-Dazs, Inc. v. Frusen Gladje, Ltd., 493 F.Supp. 73, 76 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (Scandinavian marketing theme for ice cream unprotectabl…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence