Morawa v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “To recover for a violation of this section it is not necessary that a mark or trade-mark be registered. The dis-positive question is whether, the party has a reasonable interest to be protected against false advertising.”
• “A trade name is descriptive of the manufacturer or dealer himself and applies to a business and its good will, whereas a trade-mark, in a technical sense, is applicable to the vendible commodities.”
• “[a] trade name is descriptive of the manufacturer or dealer himself and applies to a business and its good will, whereas a trade-mark, in a technical sense, is applicable to the vendible commodities ”
• “common law and statutory trade-mark infringements are merely specific aspects of unfair competition.”
• plaintiff must have “a reasonable interest to be protected.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).