{
  "id": 2948802,
  "name": "Fitzpatrick Brothers, Appellant, v. John E. Culhane and M. H. Culhane, trading as Halo Chemical Company, Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fitzpatrick Bros. v. Culhane",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,641",
  "first_page": "203",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 203"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3170,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "b27c0e0bf59982f91006e8f92cc27bff75d98c61cce4343b17a3c6e48c42dc78",
    "simhash": "1:88df508665908319",
    "word_count": 517
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fitzpatrick Brothers, Appellant, v. John E. Culhane and M. H. Culhane, trading as Halo Chemical Company, Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sentz & Jochum, for appellant.",
      "Hirschl & Hirschl, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fitzpatrick Brothers, Appellant, v. John E. Culhane and M. H. Culhane, trading as Halo Chemical Company, Appellees.\nGen. No. 22,641.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 19, 1917.\nRehearing denied March 5, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by Fitzpatrick Brothers, a corporation, complainant, against John E. Culhane and M. II. Culhane, trading as Halo Chemical Company, defendants, for alleged infringement of complainant\u2019s trade-mark rights. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.\nComplainant was the manufacturer of a scouring powder designated by it as \u201cKitchen Klenzer,\u201d which name it registered May 8, 1912, in the State of Hlinois, as a trade name, and also made application for the registration thereof in the United States Patent Office in 1908, and since. The bill charged the fraudulent \u2022infringement of complainant\u2019s rights in the premises by the sale by defendants of an article for like use under a name embodying the words \u201cKitchen Cleanser,\u201d and that the defendants threatened to continue such practice, to complainant\u2019s damage to the extent of more than $5,000, and prayed for accounting and injunction. Demurrer to the bill was overruled, and the defendant M. H. Culhane answered, denying all knowledge of the matters and things referred' to or any interest or connection with the business carried on by the defendant John E. Culhane, and the latter answered, denying complainant\u2019s exclusive right in the words claimed by it or that complainant had been injured by reason of any act or omission on his part.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 26 \u2014when suit properly dismissed as'to codefendant. Evidence held to show that one defendant had no connection with or interest in the business owned by his codefendant involved in a suit for infringement of a trade name, so as to authorize dismissal of the suit as to him.\n2. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 26*\u2014when evidence is insufficient to show use of particular name or of trade name of another. Evidence held insufficient to show the defendant had used the words \u201cKitchen Cleanser\u201d as a trade name for the preparation .sold by him or used or copied the advertising matter, trade-mark, or trade name (\u201cKitchen Klenzer\u201d) of complainant, in a suit for alleged infringement of complainant\u2019s rights in such mark or name.\n3. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 24*\u2014what does not constitute infringement of trade name. The use of a trade name embodying the words \u201cKitchen Cleanser,\u201d held to be no infringement upon the trade name \u201cKitchen Klenzer.\u201d\n4. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 5*\u2014when name is not entitled to protection. The name \u201cKitchen Cleanser\u201d is descriptive and not such as to exclude others from its use in business.\nSentz & Jochum, for appellant.\nHirschl & Hirschl, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0203-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 230
}