Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
X-Ray Stove Polish Company, Appellant, v. G. Wells Walsh, Respondent, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 578 · caselaw · US
IP
X-Ray Stove Polish Company, Appellant, v. G. Wells Walsh, Respondent
192 N.Y. 578·New York Court of Appeals·1908·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
X-Ray Stove Polish Company, Appellant, v. G. Wells Walsh, Respondent.
X-Ray Stove Polish Co. v. Walsh 114 App. Div. 901, affirmed.
(Argued May 27, 1908,
decided June 12, 1908.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 20, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action for an injunction to restrain an alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark.
Frederick S. Duncan and William H. Thitchener for appellant.
Ernest G. Stevens for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.