Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. v. HABER

July 30, 1934

YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO.
v.
HABER



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CAMPBELL

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is an action in equity brought by the plaintiff, a manufacturer of locks, keys, hardware, and other products which it identifies by the name "Yale," in which it seeks to enjoin the defendant, a hardware merchant and locksmith, from using the name "Yale Lock Service" as a trade-name for his business, and from listing such name in telephone directories, and in general from using the word "Yale" in any manner calculated to cause his business to be confused with plaintiff.

Plaintiff's solicitors in their brief say that it is concerned with protecting its rights in the word "Yale," and stands ready to waive any accounting or damages.

 The facts are as follows:

 Plaintiff over a period of seventy years has built up a world-wide business in locks, hardware, and other fabricated articles.

 Plaintiff has for many years identified its products and its business entirely by the word "Yale."

 Plaintiff has earned a widespread and enviable reputation in its field, and its goodwill which centers around the word "Yale" is of large value.

 The public has came to associate plaintiff's locks and keys and other products with and to know the business itself by the name "Yale."

 Plaintiff has forty men continuously engaged in traveling throughout the country, including New York City, oiling, cleaning, and, when necessary, repairing bank locks, safe deposit locks, and the like.

 Plaintiff employs at least ten men at its plant at Stamford, Conn., who do nothing but repair work, and orders for such work on simple locks, door checks and the like are constantly being received from New York City and elsewhere, and are filled.

 These orders for repair work come both from locksmiths and users.

 When plaintiff has installed a master key system, it keeps records of the adjustments, and it endeavors to and does have its own employees make any repairs and adjustments in such systems as may be required.

 Plaintiff does not maintain any repair shop in New York City, but it does receive from two to fifteen telephone calls a day relating to repairs or service. In some cases the inquirer is advised to send the article to Stamford, in rarer cases a man is sent out to do the work, and in ordinary simple cases, the inquirer is referred to some neighborhood locksmith whom plaintiff believes to be reliable and competent to do the work.

 Plaintiff does not give any licenses to locksmiths to "service" or "repair" "Yale" locks. It has no agency or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.