Affiliations

• KELITE CORPORATION v. Khem Chemicals

  District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1958-01-10 · cited 2×

  The case involved Kelite Corporation suing its former employees and their new competing company, Khem Chemicals, for misappropriating trade secrets including chemical formulae and customer lists, breaching confidentiality agreements, and infringing a patent on a chemical product. The court confirmed the Special Master's report, finding that the formulae and customer lists were trade secrets protected by agreements and fiduciary duties, that the defendants had wrongfully appropriated them, and that certain defendants infringed the patent. Based on these findings, the court overruled most objections, granted permanent injunctions against further use of the secrets and infringement, ordered divestment of copies of the formulae, and directed an accounting to determine damages, while rejecting claims of conspiracy.

  business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (3,192 words)

• Sunbeam Corporation v. Sunbeam Furniture Corp.

  District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1955-03-17 · cited 2×

  The case is a trademark infringement and unfair competition action under federal trademark law in which Sunbeam Corporation alleged that Sunbeam Furniture Corp., Expert Lamp Company, and related individuals infringed its registered "Sunbeam" mark by using it on lamps and in business names. After reviewing registrations, evidence of continuous use since 1921 on electrical appliances, and testimony, the court found the plaintiff's marks valid and subsisting and concluded that defendants' use was likely to cause confusion with plaintiff's goods. The court ruled for the plaintiff and entered an injunction barring defendants from using "Sunbeam" or confusingly similar marks on household electrical goods, in specified corporate names, or in ways suggesting affiliation with plaintiff. The core reasoning rested on the scope and validity of the registrations, plaintiff's priority of use for electrical products, and the evidence of potential consumer deception, while denying motions to strike certain survey and deposition evidence as going to weight rather than admissibility.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,167 words)

• United States v. Chicago Mortgage Bankers Ass'n

  District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1954-06-30 · cited 1×

  The case involved the United States suing the Chicago Mortgage Bankers Association and its member corporations under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, alleging a combination and conspiracy to suppress competition among members in making mortgage loans and to stabilize rates and charges in the Chicago area, focusing primarily on FHA mortgages. After a bench trial where the government presented only documentary evidence and the defendants offered witness testimony, the court made findings of fact that the evidence was inadequate to establish any contract, combination, or conspiracy to restrain trade, that many alleged practices had been discontinued years earlier, and that the association's code of ethics provisions on advertising and loan solicitation did not restrain trade or have any adverse effect on interstate commerce. The court concluded that the defendants had not violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as there was no intent or effect to restrain trade, and dismissed the complaint.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,578 words)