{
  "id": 5404913,
  "name": "Anatole Klintz, Appellant, v. Walter Z. Marx et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Klintz v. Marx",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,831",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 376"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 3375,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0084448014282265e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5414074334063492
    },
    "sha256": "688287be51723da020c21c94c239b331bb4bb84f6373a3d633038aa3a87df6ff",
    "simhash": "1:8895569e5cb9e898",
    "word_count": 583
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anatole Klintz, Appellant, v. Walter Z. Marx et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, for appellant.",
      "Charles E. Selleck, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anatole Klintz, Appellant, v. Walter Z. Marx et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 21,831.\n(Not to foe reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 18, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Anatole Klintz, complainant, against Walter Z. Marx, Zero Marx, Reuben II. Donnelley and Chicago Telephone Company, defendants, charging defendants Marx with the wrongful use of the trade name \u201cZero Marx Sign Works\u201d and with unfair competition in trade, and asking an injunction against all defendants as to using such trade name or one similar thereto. From a decree dismissing the bill, on demurrer, complainant appeals.\nLoesch, Scofield & Loesch, for appellant.\nCharles E. Selleck, for appellees.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 26 \u2014when right to use purr chased trade name of bankt upt must be determined in court of bankruptcy. Where a bankruptcy court through its receiver sold the tangible assets of a bankrupt corporation, together with its good will and right to use its trade name, the determination of the question whether the value of the right to use such name depended on continuous usage, held to be a matter to be determined by that court, and not collaterally in a suit brought by the purchaser of such right at such sale against parties charged with infringement and unfair use of the name.\n2. Bankruptcy, \u00a7 30*\u2014when sale made without authority may be validated by confirmation. A bankruptcy court having power to order a sale of intangible property may, by confirmation of a sale made by a receiver without a prior order, ratify and validate the sale, the confirmation being equivalent to a prior order.\n3. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 24*\u2014what constitutes unfair competition in trade. The use by defendants of the words \u201cZero Marx Signs\u201d and \"Marx Zero Signs\u201d in a telephone directory, and solicitation by them of business by representing they were successors in business of a corporation bearing the name \u201cZero Marx Sign Works,\u201d held to be unfair competition in trade against complainant as purchaser at a receiver\u2019s sale in a bankruptcy court of the right to use the name of said corporation, in a suit for infringement and unfair use of such name.\n4. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 14*\u2014right of purchaser to use trade name. A trade name is an asset which may lawfully be sold and the purchaser has the right to use it.\n5. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 10*\u2014what is effect of use of trade name by purchaser. The use of a trade name by the purchaser of the right to use same is not a representation that the purchaser is the identical person who formerly used it, but merely that, he has the right to do business under that name.\n6. Trade-marks and trade names, \u00a7 26*\u2014when bill for injunction against use of trade name is sufficient. A bill for an injunction setting up complainant\u2019s purchase of the right to use a certain trade name and the use by defendants in their business of a similar name with representations that they were successors to the original user of the name, held to state grounds for relief in a court of chancery.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 404,
  "last_page_order": 405
}