Drittel v. Friedman, 154 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1946). · Go Syfert
Search
Drittel v. Friedman, 154 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1946). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kaufman Ex Rel. Kaufman v. Bormaster (moctapp, 1980-04-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1948 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1948 1987 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#5 15 U.S.C. § 89 cited 1× in this case · 23 total citations of statute #7 15 U.S.C. § 102 cited 1× in this case · 21 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kaufman Ex Rel. Kaufman v. Bormaster
Mo. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Dutton v. Cities Service Defense Corp., 197 F.2d 458, 459 (8th Cir. 1952); Drittel v. Friedman, 154 F.2d 653, 654 (2d Cir. 1946).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The State of New York v. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Co. v. Kraft, 200 F.2d 952, 953 (2d Cir. 1953); Marcus Breier Sons, Inc. v. Marvlo Fabrics, Inc., 173 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1949); Drittel v. Friedman, 154 F.2d 653, 654 (2d Cir. 1946).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abercrombie & Fitch Company v. Hunting World, Incorporated (2×)
2d Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
In contrast to the rule under the Trademark Act of 1905, see Drittel v. Friedman, 154 F.2d 653, 654 (2 Cir. 1946), § 37 of the Lanham Act permits cancellation on a counterclaim by a defendant who does not own a registered mark.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cromaglass Corporation, Williamsport, Pa. (A Pennsylvania Corporation) v. Carl Ferm
3rd Cir. · 1974 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Drittel v. Friedman, 154 F.2d 653 (2 Cir. 1946); Betmar Hats v. Young America Hats, 116 F.2d 956 (2 Cir. 1941); In re Finkelstein, 102 F.2d 688 (2 Cir. 1939); Jones v. St.
DRITTEL
v.
FRIEDMAN Et Al.
230.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 29, 1946.
154 F.2d 653
Morris Kirschstein, of New York City, for appellee,, I. Gainsburg, of New York City, for appellants.
L. Hand, Clark, and Frank, Circuit Judges.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
FRANK, Circuit Judge.

1. In so. far as the appeal relates to the counterclaim, we may entertain it, since the counterclaim sought an injunction. Defendants’ suggestion that we “search the record,” and thus determine the validity of plaintiff’s claim, is an oblique suggestion that we review the order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. But such an order is not, appealable.

2. Except as to two items, noted below, the state court judgment was res judicata barring the counterclaim. For necessarily within the issues which could have been litigated in the state court action, under defendants’ pleadings there, was their claim that their use of the name “Juliana” in their trade-name conferred on them the right to prevent plaintiff from using it as a label.

3. After the entry of that judgment, defendants began to mark their goods “Juliana”; the counterclaim, to the extent that it rested upon that use, was not similarly barred. But obviously, too, to that extent it lacks merit because of plaintiff’s prior use.

4. Also not barred by the state court judgment is the claim based on paragraph 25. The only asserted foundation for that claim is 15 U.S.C.A. § 102. But such a right can be asserted only by one who has obtained a registered trade-mark, and that defendants have not done. Since defendants have not appealed to the Commissioner of Patents, 15 U.S.C.A. § 89 is inapplicable.

Affirmed.