Case Name: FAIR & CARNIVAL SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. SHAPIRO et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1918-12-05
Citations: 253 F. 738
Docket Number: No. 2394
Parties: FAIR & CARNIVAL SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. SHAPIRO et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 253
Pages: 738–739

Head Matter:
FAIR & CARNIVAL SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. SHAPIRO et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
December 5, 1918.)
No. 2394.
Trade-Marks and Trade-Names <§=»95(1) — Suit for Infringement — Preliminary Injunction.
The refusal of a preliminary injunction in a suit for infringement of trade-marks and unfair competition held within the discretion of the court.
<@zs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge.
Suit by the Pair & Carnival Supply Company, Incorporated, against Max Shapiro and Nathan Karr, doing business under the firm name of Shapiro & Karr. From an order denying a preliminary injunction, complainant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Stephen J. Cox, of New York City (Wiedersheim & Fairbanks and J. Bonsall Taylor, all of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.
Jacob I. Weinstein and Alfred Aarons, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOODLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In the court below the plaintiffs, the makers of dolls, to which it had given the name "Bewtie Dolls" and of which it had sold large numbers, filed its bill charging the defendants with unfair competition and violation of plaintiff's trade-mark, in the sale of a doll of similar appearance under the trade-name of "the Beauty Doll." The plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction was heard by the court on affidavits and refused. Thereupon the plaintiff appeals to this court.
Without entering upon a discussion of the pertinent facts, we may say the affidavits satisfy us the case was one where there was a considerable range of discretion as to whether a court should decide the question of injunction on preliminary or final hearing. In the exercise of that discretion, the court followed the latter course. Without, as we have said here, discussing the facts and expressing no conclusion there on, we may say they disclose no such situation as made the refusal of the injunction at this stage of the case error, instead of a reasonable exercise of the court's discretionary powers in declining present injunctive relief and allowing the case to go to final hearing.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.