Affiliations

• Majestic Theatre Co. v. United Artists Corporation

  Cites Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc. — 280 Fed'. 301, reversed.

• Trico Products Corporation v. Ace Products Corporation

  Cites Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde — 214 Fed. Rep. 100, reversed.

• Warner v. Walsh

  Cites Sage v. United States — 53 Ct. Clms. 628, reversed

• Majestic Theatre Co. v. United Artists Corporation

  District Court, D. Connecticut · 1930-10-09 · cited 2×

  This case involved an antitrust claim by a movie theater exhibitor against film distributors, alleging a conspiracy to restrain trade through a uniform 'Standard Exhibition Contract' that mandated arbitration of disputes and allowed security demands from any distributor upon an exhibitor's breach. The defendants raised a special defense by way of confession and avoidance, to which the plaintiff demurred, prompting the court to assess whether the complaint adequately stated a cause of action under the antitrust laws. The court examined the complaint's allegations that distributors formed a combination via the New Haven Film Board of Trade, controlled film licensing in Connecticut, and enforced arbitration clauses that bound exhibitors across multiple contracts, but noted procedural requirements under Connecticut practice rules that a demurrer must specifically challenge the pleading at issue. The core reasoning addressed whether the distributors' conduct in interstate commerce and their refusal to deal outside the standard form could constitute actionable injury, while assuming arguendo that the complaint's sufficiency could be tested through the demurrer despite doubts about the applicable pleading rules.

  business & regulatoryprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (4,266 words)

• Trico Products Corporation v. Ace Products Corporation

  District Court, D. Connecticut · 1929-01-15 · cited 8×

  This case involved a lawsuit by Trico Products Corporation against Ace Products Corporation and its officers for infringing U.S. Patent No. 1,659,496 on a windshield wiper and for unfair competition through sales of similar wipers and packaging. The court dismissed claims against the individual officers because there was no evidence they acted personally or beyond their corporate roles or used the company to avoid liability. It rejected the unfair competition claim regarding the wipers themselves, as their appearance was not shown to be associated with the plaintiff and involved only functional features, but found the defendant corporation liable for unfair competition in using similar packaging and advertising materials, warranting an injunction. The court upheld the patent's validity based on the presumption from its grant, its commercial success, and its distinction from prior art, and held that it was infringed, ordering an injunction, accounting, and costs.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (4,071 words)

• National Institute, Inc. v. Nutt

  District Court, D. Connecticut · 1928-08-13 · cited 12×

  This case involved a copyright infringement suit brought by National Institute, Inc. against former employee Robert H. Nutt, who began delivering memory-training lectures under a similar trade name after leaving the plaintiff's predecessor business. The court held that the plaintiff's copyright on the lectures was valid and had not been dedicated to the public through limited delivery to paying audiences, that the lectures contained sufficient originality in arrangement and new material to qualify for protection under the Copyright Act of 1909, and that the defendant had infringed by appropriating substantial portions including structure, illustrations, and phrasing. The court rejected challenges to the assignment of rights and found the similarity between the works called for an explanation that was not provided. It granted the plaintiff an injunction, an accounting, and actual damages plus costs.

  property

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,003 words)

• Warner v. Walsh

  District Court, D. Connecticut · 1928-07-12 · cited 6×

  This case involved Eva E. Warner suing former IRS collector James J. Walsh to recover income taxes paid for 1919 and the first half of 1920 under the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921, on the ground that they were erroneously assessed on annuity payments received from a trust established in lieu of her statutory rights in an estate. The court considered whether the annuity was taxable income, whether the refund claim had been properly presented to the Commissioner, whether the taxes were paid voluntarily without protest or duress, and whether the court had jurisdiction over a suit against a former collector. Following circuit precedent in Fox v. Edwards, the court concluded that taxes paid voluntarily cannot be recovered even if illegally assessed, and therefore entered judgment for the defendant.

  taxesprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (3,024 words)