GENTRY

v.

NORTH CAROLINA

Citator

Cited By

• S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson, 175 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1949)
  …ere does not appear to be a quite clear law of 1946, as I fear those who have struggled with our decisions such as Triangle Publications v. Rohrlich, 2 Cir., 167 F. 2d 969, compared with Best & Co. v. Miller, 2 Cir., 167 F. 2d 374, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 818, 69 S.Ct. 39, will understand. Moreover, this assumes what is set out to be proven and what is contrary to the professed desire oí the protagonists, namely, that the Act was intended only as declaratory of existing law. The argument which is really…
• B. H. Bunn Co., Inc. v. AAA Replacement Parts Co., Inc., 451 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …ark infringement, intent is probative of unfair competition. My-T Fine Corp. v. Samuels, 2 Cir. 1934, 69 F. 2d 76; E. Kahn’s Sons Co. v. Columbus Packing Co., 6 Cir. 1936, 82 F. 2d 897; Best & Co. v. Miller, 2 Cir. 1948, 167 F. 2d 374, cert. denied, 335 U.S. 818, 69 S.Ct. 39, 93 L. Ed. 373. If it is defendant’s intent to ensnare buyers by use of a similar mark, he may be unsuccessful enough at his simulation to be free of liability under the trademark laws. However, the fact that he had the intent to fool…
• Harold F. Ritchie, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc., 281 F.2d 755 (2d Cir. 1960)
  …the two trademarks is the ‘r’ in Dramamine. Slight differences in the sound of similar trademarks will not protect the infringer.” . For other Second Circuit cases to the same effect, see Best & Co. v. Miller, 167 F. 2d 374, 377, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 818, 69 S.Ct. 39, 93 L.Ed. 373 (dictum); Miles Shoes, Inc. v. R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., 199 F. 2d 602, 603; American Chicle Co. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 208 F. 2d 560, 562; Mastercrafters C. & R. Co. v. Vacheron & Const.-Le C. W., 221 F. 2d 464, 467, c…