green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
2.3 score
“telechron" infringed by "telicon”
Treatment trajectory · 1954 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1954
1990
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Miller Brewing Co. v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada, Ltd.
telechron" infringed by "telicon
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Presley v. Russen
See Q-Tips, Inc., 206 F.2d at 147 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 867 , 74 S.Ct. 106 , 98 L.Ed. 377 (1953).
cited
Cited "see"
Schmid Laboratories v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.
See Q-Tips Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 206 F.2d 144, 147 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 867 , 74 S.Ct. 106 , 98 L.Ed. 377 (1953).
cited
Cited "see"
Fotomat Corp. v. Photo Drive-Thru, Inc.
See Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 206 F.2d 144 (3d Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 867 , 74 S.Ct. 106 , 98 L.Ed. 377 (1953); G.
discussed
Cited "see"
General Controls Co. v. Hi-G, Inc
Lanolin Plus Cosmetics, Inc. v. Marzall, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 349 , 196 F.2d 591, 592 (1952) cert, denied 344 U.S. 823 , 73 S. Ct. 22 , 97 L.Ed. 640 (1952); See Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 206 F.2d 144, 148 (3 Cir., 1953) cert, denied 346 U.S. 867 , 74 S.Ct. 106 , 98 L.Ed. 377 (1953). 1 When the interests of parties in the right to use a mark do not clash head-on 2 because the products on which the mark is used are not the same, that the use of the mark by a defendant on its products and labels and in its advertising may be “likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers as …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Trump
See also Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 206 F.2d 144, 147-48 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 867 , 74 S.Ct. 106 , 98 L.Ed. 377 (1953); Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesar’s Palace, supra, 490 F.Supp. at 823-24 ; Fotomat Corp. v. Drive-Thru, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 693, 703 (E.D.Pa.1977); McNeil Laboratories, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp., 416 F.Supp. 804, 806 (D.N.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Narehood
v.
Pearson, County Commissioners of Clearfield County
v.
Pearson, County Commissioners of Clearfield County
No. 286.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 26, 1953.
William D. Donnelly for petitioners. Frank G. Smith and Robert V. Maine for respondents.
Published
Citer courts: W.D. New York (1)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District. Certiorari denied.
William D. Donnelly for petitioners. Frank G. Smith and Robert V. Maine for respondents.