1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 137 F.Supp.
  5. 137 F.Supp. 484 (1956)
 

BALL CHEMICAL COMPANY v. HODENFIELD

No. 17887.

137 F.Supp. 484 (1956)

BALL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Olaus T. HODENFIELD, doing business as De-Oxo-Lin Chemical Products, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.

January 23, 1956.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lyon & Lyon, by Frederick W. Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., Almon S. Nelson, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

C. G. Stratton, McCarroll & McCarroll, Los Angeles, Cal., Cushman, Darby & Cushman, Max G. Louis, George T. Mobille, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

YANKWICH, Chief Judge.

The above-entitled cause heretofore tried, argued and submitted, is now decided as follows:

Judgment will be for the plaintiff for injunction only. Costs to the plaintiff. No attorneys' fees.

Findings and judgment to be prepared by counsel for the plaintiff under Local Rule 7.

Comment

The issue in the case is rather simple. The plaintiff's trade-mark "Oxolin" is a valid fanciful mark. It was coined many years...

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