From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crescendoe Gloves Inc. v. Rubin

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Apr 4, 1950
89 F. Supp. 922 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)

Opinion

April 4, 1950.

Krause, Hirsch, Levin Heilpern, New York City, for plaintiff.

Martin B. Nadle, New York City, for defendant David Rubin.

Mock Blum, New York City, Alex Friedman, New York City, for defendant Best Co., Inc.


This is a motion for a preliminary injunction against alleged infringement of United States Design Patent No. D.156,234 for a woman's glove issued November 29, 1949, to Ross H. Higier who on the following day assigned it to the plaintiff. The suit was commenced by the filing of the complaint on March 3, 1950.

I am unable to detect any facts or circumstances here to exempt this case from the rulings of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in Belding Heminway Co. v. Future Fashions, Inc., 2 Cir., 143 F.2d 216 and White et al. v. Leanore Frocks, Inc., 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 113.

The defendants' affidavits and exhibits certainly raise an issue as to the patent's validity, and the proof offered by plaintiff to show public acquiescence, in my opinion, fails to do so.

The motion for preliminary injunction is accordingly denied. Submit order.


Summaries of

Crescendoe Gloves Inc. v. Rubin

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Apr 4, 1950
89 F. Supp. 922 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)
Case details for

Crescendoe Gloves Inc. v. Rubin

Case Details

Full title:CRESCENDOE GLOVES, Inc. v. RUBIN et al

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Apr 4, 1950

Citations

89 F. Supp. 922 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)

Citing Cases

Porto Rico Tel. v. Puerto Rico Commun. Auth

A preliminary injunction was issued as prayed for and the case was referred to a special master for…