Case ID: f_297/html/0223-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ABERFOYLE MFG. CO. v. WOHL, SOUTH & CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    February 11, 1924.)
    No. 232.
    Trade-marks and frade-names and unfair competition <S=»95(!) — Injunction pendente lite justified.
    Where there was some evidence that defendants deliberately passed offl . their own goods as those of the plaintiff, an injunction pendente lite was justified.
    @=pFor other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
    Suit in equity by the Aberfoyle Manufacturing Company against Wohl, South & Co. From an order an lite, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Myron Sulzberger, of New York City (Henry G. Wiley, of New York City,_ of .counsel), for appellant.
    Reed, Dougherty & Hoyt, of New York City (Morris Wolf and J. Hampden Dougherty, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
    Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The serious question suggested by this record is whether defendants are guilty of unfair competition, if they are doing no more than what they themselves admit having done.

But there is some evidence of defendants having deliberately passed off'their own goods as those of the plaintiff’s, and this was enough to justify injunction pendente lite. We are not disposed to disturb the result as embodied in this temporary order. Therefore the order is affirmed, with a recommendation that the trial of the cause be expedited. This affirmance is not to be taken as an expression of opinion regarding the principal question, which will undoubtedly be presented when the cause comes on to be tried, .after examination and cross-examination ■of witnesses.

Order affirmed, with costs.