200 F. 153 | D. Tenn. | 1912
Memorandum Opinion on Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
As counsel for both parties have stated that they desire a final hearing at an early date at which the affidavits used at the hearing of this motion are to be largely used as evidence, I shall, in ruling upon this motion, merely state in a general way the conclusions which I have reached after a careful consideration of the motion and arguments and briefs of counsel in reference thereto, without elaboration.
The effect of the proviso in section 5 of the Act of 1905 was to make a name subject to registry as a valid trade-mark, through such
4. As this suit does not involve the enforcement of the dispensing contracts of the complainant, the alleged illegality of such contracts under the Anti-Trust Act is not a ground for denying the complainant relief against an infringement of its trade-mark. Coca-Cola Co. v. Bottling Co., supra.
5. A ground for denying the injunction is not established by any sufficient evidence showing the introduction of a deleterious substance in the complainant’s compound. Coca-Cola Co. v. Bottling Co., supra.
6. I likewise find no sufficient ground for denying the injunction in the use by the complainant of the word “nutrient” in the application for trade-marks.
8. And while I incline to the opinion that in visw of the similarity
An o'rder will be entered accordingly.