1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 30 F.Supp.
  5. 30 F.Supp. 388 (1939)
 

LIP LURE v. BLOOMINGDALE BROS.

30 F.Supp. 388 (1939)

LIP LURE, Inc., v. BLOOMINGDALE BROS., Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

October 26, 1939.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Howard S. Neiman, of New York City (Edward T. Kelly and Clarence W. Archibold, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds, of New York City (Carl E. Ring, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

CONGER, District Judge.

The defendant moves for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, claiming that as a matter of law the plaintiff has no valid rights in the trademark "Lyptone" (the trademark "Lip Lure" is not involved in this action).

Four defenses are urged for the dismissal of the complaint with respect to "Lyptone". It is claimed that the undisputed facts establish the defendant's...

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