1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 233 F.2d
  5. 233 F.2d 148 (1956)
 

HELENE CURTIS INDUSTRIES v. SALES AFFILIATES

Nos. 189-192, Dockets 23185-23188.

233 F.2d 148 (1956)

HELENE CURTIS INDUSTRIES, Inc., and Helene Curtis Sales, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, C. V. Layden, doing business as Southwestern Beauty Products Company, Plaintiff-Intervener, v. SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. The GILLETTE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, Plaintiffs-Interveners-Appellees, v. SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, The Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary Plaintiff, v. C. V. LAYDEN, doing business as Southwestern Beauty Products Company, Defendant-Appellee. SALES AFFILIATES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, The Procter & Gamble Company, Involuntary Plaintiff, v. SKILLERN & SONS, Inc., Walgreen Drug Company of Texas, and The Gillette Company, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Decided April 9, 1956.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City (Theodore S. Kenyon, New York City, Maurice S. Cayne, Chicago, Ill., and Malvin R. Mandelbaum, New York City, of counsel), for Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., Helene Curtis Sales, Inc., and C. V. Layden, d/b/a Southwestern Beauty Products Co.

Henry R. Ashton, New York City (Edgar H. Kent, Boston, Mass., Rynn Berry, New York City, and Martin Kirkpatrick, Boston, Mass., of counsel), for Gillette Co.

Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, New York City (Clarence Fried, New York City, of counsel), for Skillern & Sons, Inc., and Walgreen Drug Co. of Texas.

Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, New York City (George B. Finnegan, Jr., New York City, William D. Denson, Washington, D. C., and Jerome G. Lee, New York City, of counsel), for Sales Affiliates, Inc.

Before MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges, and BURKE, District Judge.

HINCKS, Circuit Judge.

These four appeals all involve the validity and infringement of United States Patent No. 2,577,710 which issued to McDonough on December 4, 1951 on an application dated June 16, 1941. The appeals are brought from four decrees of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, in each of which, on a considered opinion reported in 121 F.Supp. 490, it was adjudged that the patent in suit was invalid...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases