Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Garlock, Inc. v. United Seal Incorporated

    404 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1968)   Cited 82 times
    Noting that plaintiff has the burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, to warrant a preliminary injunction

    While the hearing before the District Court approached a full scale trial, the Judge was not authorized to determine the case on its merits, but only to decide whether plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief. In order to be entitled to such relief plaintiff had the burden of establishing a clear case of irreparable injury and of convincing the Court that the balance of injury favored the granting of the injunction, Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 55 F.2d 800 (6th Cir. 1932). Probability of success on the trial must also be shown, H.E. Fletcher Co. v. Rock of Ages Corp., 326 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1963).

  2. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. v. Bergey

    453 F. Supp. 129 (S.D. Ohio 1974)   Cited 18 times
    Discussing cases in which no intent to interfere was found on part of competing team, notwithstanding that contract with rival team was negotiated and executed while player remained under contract with home team, because rival contract required player's performance to begin only after expiration of existing contractual term and financial terms of rival contract created no incentive for player to breach any existing contractual obligations

    ". . . In order to be entitled to such relief plaintiff had the burden of establishing a clear case of irreparable injury and of convincing the Court that the balance of injury favored the granting of the injunction, Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 55 F.2d 800 (6th Cir., 1932). Probability of success on the trial must also be shown, H. E. Fletcher Co. v. Rock of Ages Corp., 326 F.2d 13 (2d Cir., 1963)."

  3. Upjohn Company v. Finch

    303 F. Supp. 241 (W.D. Mich. 1969)   Cited 18 times
    Taking judicial notice that many corporations incorporate in Delaware but have no other relationship to that state

    In Garlock, Inc. v. United Steel Incorporated, 404 F.2d 256 (C.A. 6, 1968), the Court of Appeals for this Circuit said: "In order to be entitled to such relief plaintiff had the burden of establishing a clear case of irreparable injury and of convincing the Court that the balance of injury favored the granting of the injunction, Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 55 F.2d 800 (6th Cir. 1932). Probability of success on the trial must also be shown, H.E. Fletcher Co. v. Rock of Ages Corp., 326 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1963).

  4. Zebelman v. Chrysler Corporation

    299 F. Supp. 653 (E.D. Mo. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    The facts offered to support a temporary injunction should be fully and definitely disclosed. See Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 55 F.2d 800 (6th Cir. 1932). It would be an abuse of judicial discretion to grant a temporary injunction based upon only the allegations of Counts I and II in this instance. Count III of the complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to act in good faith as required by the Automobile Franchise Dealers Act ( 15 U.S.C. ยง 1222).

  5. Olsen v. Baby World Co., Inc. et al.

    120 F. Supp. 462 (E.D.N.Y. 1954)   Cited 1 times

    It is well settled that the plaintiff's right to a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Court, and that to warrant its granting the propriety of the relief must be clearly and convincingly shown. National Commodities Co. v. Viret, 2 Cir., 296 F. 664; Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 6 Cir., 55 F.2d 800; Caron Corporation v. Maison Jeurelle-Seventeen, D.C., 26 F. Supp. 560. Since I am not convinced of the validity of the plaintiff's patents the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Settle order on notice.

  6. Mueller v. Wolfinger

    68 F. Supp. 485 (S.D. Ohio 1946)   Cited 6 times

    "The Court: That is what I think it is." While agreeing that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is within the sound discretion of the Trial Court, defendants urge that, nevertheless, it is an extraordinary remedy and that one should not issue unless both the validity of the patent and infringement are clear; and further, that where a patent has been held valid and infringed in one suit, a preliminary injunction sought in another on the same patent need not be granted, citing a number of authorities, among others: Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 6 Cir., 55 F.2d 800; Diamond Power Specialty Corporation v. Bayer Co., 8 Cir., 95 F.2d 541; Outlook Co. v. Presto Cloth Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 267 F. 193; Schick Dry Shaver Incorporated v. General Shaver Corporation, D.C., 21 F. Supp. 718; Automatic Devices Corporation v. Cumo Engineering Corporation, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 144. As above indicated, in the instant proceeding, the validity of the patent is not challenged.

  7. Caron Corporation v. Maison Jeurelle-Seventeen

    26 F. Supp. 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1938)   Cited 5 times

    Since there is nothing in the use of words or appearances that makes a clear case of infringement, the Court, in the absence of such a showing at this stage of the proceeding, will not find that there has been an infringement by the defendant of plaintiff's trademark. Set-O-Type Co. v. American Multigraph Co., 6 Cir., 55 F.2d 800; National Commodities Co. v. Viret, 2 Cir., 296 F. 664; Lektro-Shave Corporation v. General Shaver Corp., 2 Cir., 92 F.2d 435. The conclusions the Court has reached respecting the claim of trademark infringement apply with like force and effect to the claim of unfair competition.