From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schering Glatz, Inc., v. Am. Pharm. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 14, 1933
185 N.E. 109 (N.Y. 1933)

Opinion

Argued January 25, 1933

Decided March 14, 1933

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Albert T. Scharps and Louis Barnett for appellants. Fritz v. Briesen for respondent.

Seward Davis for The Chemical Foundation, Incorporated, amicus curiae.



In respect to the first and second counterclaims, we think that they set up sufficient facts to constitute causes of action to restrain acts of unfair competition; that they were properly interposed, notwithstanding the fact that they seek to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with its sales of "other products" than suppositories, since such interference is "connected with the subject matter of the action." In respect to the third and fourth counterclaims, they present facts which might properly call for declaratory judgments in respect to the question whether or not the interpleaded defendant held the trade-mark and trade-mark rights for the benefit of the public, so that neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants had exclusive rights to the use thereof.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. All of the questions certified are answered in the affirmative except question seven, which is answered in the negative.

POUND, Ch. J., CRANE, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ., concur; LEHMAN, J., dissents.

Ordered accordingly.


Summaries of

Schering Glatz, Inc., v. Am. Pharm. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 14, 1933
185 N.E. 109 (N.Y. 1933)
Case details for

Schering Glatz, Inc., v. Am. Pharm. Co.

Case Details

Full title:SCHERING GLATZ, INC., Respondent, v. AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 14, 1933

Citations

185 N.E. 109 (N.Y. 1933)
185 N.E. 109

Citing Cases

Town of Harrison v. Sunny Ridge Builders

The defendant goes further and argues that the counterclaim alleged by the defendants herein does arise out…

Schering Glatz v. American Pharmaceutical Co.

Concededly the sufficiency of the counterclaims involved is no longer open to question. ( Schering Glatz,…