F. E. WEAR ET AL.

v.

VIRGIL W. JOHNSTON ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Vivitar Corp. v. The United States, 761 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
  …ention the § 27 exclusion provision of the trademark statute in Katzel since it was not an issue directly raised in that case. However, the question of exclusion by Customs under § 27 arose shortly thereafter in A. Bour-jois & Co., Inc. v. Aldridge, 263 U.S. 675, 44 S.Ct. 4, 68 L.Ed. 501 (1923). The underlying facts of Aldridge closely parallel those in Katzel, except that the trademark involved was MANON LESCAUT for face powder, another mark Bourjois (NY) had acquired from Wertheimer. Unlike Katzel, this t…
• Coal. TO Preserve THE Integrity OF Am. Trademarks v. United States, 790 F.2d 903 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
  …. § 1526(c), but the statute was not available to the plaintiff in Katzel at the time it brought suit and presumably it was thought that the subsequent enactment could not affect the case on appeal. . Subsequently, in A. Bourjois & Co. v. Aldridge, 263 U.S. 675, 44 S.Ct. 4, 68 L.Ed. 501 (1923) (per curiam), a case with facts similar to those of Katzel, the Supreme Court held that goods bearing genuine foreign trademarks identical to American trademarks should be excluded from the country by the Customs Ser…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Olympus Corp. v. United States, 792 F.2d 315 (2d Cir. 1986)
  …smissed Olympus’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1124 (1982). The plain language of the statute does not bar importation if the goods are genuine, only if they “copy or simulate” a trademark. True, the Supreme Court held in A. Bourjois & Co. v. Aldridge, 263 U.S. 675, 44 S.Ct. 4, 68 L.Ed. 501 (1923) (per curiam), by answering affirmatively questions certified at 292 F. 1013, 1014 (2d Cir.1922), that section 27 of the Trade-Mark Law of 1905, from which 15 U.S.C. § 1124 was derived, bars importation of goods produ…

Authorities Cited

• Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1920)