Citation network
Hurn Vs. Oursler
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 17, 1933
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 238 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
U.S. 238 (1933) Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
the merits, the court still had jurisdiction to decide the claim of unfair competition on the merits. Leschen Rope Co. v. BroderickSearch
-
U. S. 166 , and Elgin Watch Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
to certain decisions of this Court which seem most nearly in point. In Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co. v. StarkSearch
-
have left that matter to be disposed of upon the merits. And that is the effect of the decision of this Court in Moore v. NewSearch
-
can neither be extended nor abridged by a rule of court. Page 289 U. S. 243 As early as Osborn v. U.SSearch
-
In Siler v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co. v. LincolnSearch
-
of many cases where the rule has been stated and restated in substantially the same way. See Louisville & Nash. R. Co. v. GarrettSearch
-
Greene v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Louisville & Nash. R. Co. v. GreeneSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 378 , 287 U. S. 393 -394. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. BroderickSearch
-
or, the bill being sufficient to meet this test, such invalidity is otherwise disclosed. Elgin Watch Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
basis for independent causes of action. The applicable rule is stated, and authorities cited, in Baltimore S.S. Co. v. PhillipsSearch
-
and federal jurisdiction, the meaning should be kept within the limits indicated. Compare Baltimore & O.S.W. R. Co. v. CarrollSearch
-
of unfair competition and infringement are related, the federal court is without power to consider the former. Planten v. GedneySearch
-
Recamier Mfg. Co. v. HarrietSearch
-
G. Kroncke Hardware Co., 234 F. 868, 872-875. Compare Moore v. N.YSearch
-
Dickinson Tire & Machine Co. v. DickinsonSearch
-
F.2d 493. In Onondaga Indian Wigwam Co. v. Ka-Noo-NoSearch
-
Ludwigs v. PaysonSearch
-
W. F. Burns Co. v. AutomaticSearch
-
Payton v. IdealSearch
-
has been denied for unfair competition where the patent or trademark has been held valid but not infringed -- Sprigg v. FisherSearch
-
Detroit Showcase Co. v. KawneerSearch
-
Taylor v. BostickSearch
-
F. 232, while the contrary is stated with much force in Vogue Co. v. VogueSearch
-
One case, at least, seems to consider the question of retention of jurisdiction a matter of discretion. Mallinson v. RyanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hurn v. OurslerSearch
-
Leschen Rope Co. v. BroderickSearch
-
and Elgin Watch Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
In Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co. v. StarkSearch
-
Moore v. NewSearch
-
Osborn v. U.SSearch
-
See Louisville & Nash. R. Co. v. GarrettSearch
-
Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. BroderickSearch
-
Elgin Watch Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
Baltimore S.S. Co. v. PhillipsSearch
-
Compare Baltimore & O.S.W. R. Co. v. CarrollSearch
-
Planten v. GedneySearch
-
Compare Moore v. N.YSearch
-
In Onondaga Indian Wigwam Co. v. Ka-Noo-NoSearch
-
Sprigg v. FisherSearch
-
Vogue Co. v. VogueSearch
-
Mallinson v. RyanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial