Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Chancery of the State of New Jersey Volume 77 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911 edition. Excerpt: ...imitated any trade-mark or name of complainant, in violation of complainant's rights, or that in the manner of placing its name and the name of its goods upon its boxes, it has counterfeited, copied or imitated the manner of placing the name of the complainant upon complainant's goods or boxes. The evidence does not sustain this averment. In the case of some, at least, of defendant's cans and packages there is undoubtedly a design to imitate the make-up of complainant's cans and packages. The principle controversy, however, hinges upon the use by defendant of the words "Nonfluid oil." As to this, defendant says that the name was employed as a descriptive designation of the goods which it manufactured and sold; that the words composing it are words in general use in the English language, having a definite and well established meaning, and that as such they may be used by anyone who manufactures and sells goods of which the words are properly descriptive. This insistment would, no doubt, be sound if the lubricant that both parties make be, in fact, an oil. The undisputed evidence, however, shows that neither party manufactures an oil, properly so called. What they do put out is a grease. The two substances are so dissimilar that complainant founds his case upon the admitted difference. Were it not for the dissimilarity, it is conceded that complainant would have no exclusive right, for the reason that neither the descriptive adjective "nonfluid," nor the noun "oil," are capable of exclusive appropriation by any single manufacturer, if used in their proper sense. The complainant in his bill charges that the term "Nonfluid oil" is an arbitrary, fanciful and distinguishing name or trademark, applied by it to...

R867

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles8670
Mobicred@R81pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911 edition. Excerpt: ...imitated any trade-mark or name of complainant, in violation of complainant's rights, or that in the manner of placing its name and the name of its goods upon its boxes, it has counterfeited, copied or imitated the manner of placing the name of the complainant upon complainant's goods or boxes. The evidence does not sustain this averment. In the case of some, at least, of defendant's cans and packages there is undoubtedly a design to imitate the make-up of complainant's cans and packages. The principle controversy, however, hinges upon the use by defendant of the words "Nonfluid oil." As to this, defendant says that the name was employed as a descriptive designation of the goods which it manufactured and sold; that the words composing it are words in general use in the English language, having a definite and well established meaning, and that as such they may be used by anyone who manufactures and sells goods of which the words are properly descriptive. This insistment would, no doubt, be sound if the lubricant that both parties make be, in fact, an oil. The undisputed evidence, however, shows that neither party manufactures an oil, properly so called. What they do put out is a grease. The two substances are so dissimilar that complainant founds his case upon the admitted difference. Were it not for the dissimilarity, it is conceded that complainant would have no exclusive right, for the reason that neither the descriptive adjective "nonfluid," nor the noun "oil," are capable of exclusive appropriation by any single manufacturer, if used in their proper sense. The complainant in his bill charges that the term "Nonfluid oil" is an arbitrary, fanciful and distinguishing name or trademark, applied by it to...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

July 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

July 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 13mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

242

ISBN-13

978-1-153-83579-4

Barcode

9781153835794

Categories

LSN

1-153-83579-7



Trending On Loot