1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 247 F.2d
  5. 247 F.2d 940 (1957)
 

HELENE CURTIS INDUSTRIES v. SALES AFFILIATES

Nos. 341-344, Dockets 24524-24527.

247 F.2d 940 (1957)

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

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Decided September 5, 1957.

On Motion for Recall of Mandate, etc., November 6, 1957.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (Bruce Bromley and Jack E. Brown, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City (Theodore S. Kenyon, New York City; Adolph A. Rubinson, Maurice S. Cayne, of Chicago, Ill., and Malvin R. Mandelbaum, New York City, of counsel), for Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., and others.

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

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

Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, New York City (George B. Finnegan, Jr., New York City, William D. Denson, Washington, D. C., Jerome G. Lee and Albert H. Brodkin, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before CHASE, HINCKS and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge.

The question for decision is this: Where one federal court after protracted and expensive litigation, has already decided that a patent is invalid and has enjoined the defendant-patentee from suing thereon, may that court issue a supplemental injunction enjoining that patentee from suing customers of the plaintiffs under the cloak of another corporate shell in another circuit of our federal judicial system for infringement of a later-issued...

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