Case Name: JOHNSON WHOLESALE PERFUME COMPANY vs. THEODORE SCHWARTZ, ET AL.
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1936-12-18
Citations: 4 Conn. Supp. 356
Docket Number: File #50510
Parties: JOHNSON WHOLESALE PERFUME COMPANY vs. THEODORE SCHWARTZ, ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Supplement
Volume: 4
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
JOHNSON WHOLESALE PERFUME COMPANY vs. THEODORE SCHWARTZ, ET AL.
Superior Court New Haven County
File #50510
Present: Hon. NEWELL JENNINGS, Judge.
Levy & Levy, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Edward A. Mag, Attorney for the Defendants.
MEMORANDUM FILED DECEMBER 18, 1936.

Opinion:
JENNINGS, J.
The allegation sought to be expunged goes to the heart of the defense. This motion is limited in scope, its use is not encouraged and it should be applied only when the defect is plain.
Whitney vs. Cady, 71 Conn. 166, 171.
Bitello vs. Lipson, 80 Conn. 497, 503.
Donovan vs. Davis, 85 Conn. 394, 398.
Warner vs. Railroad, 86 Conn. 561, 566.
The citations from Nims on Unfair Competition seem to indicate that the defense attacked would be good even on demurrer. See pages 825, 826, 977-981.
The motion is denied.