Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite New Orleans Checker Cabs, Inc. v. Mumphrey, 18 So. 2d 629.

18 citing documents.

Louisiana Granite Yard, Inc. v. La Granite Countertops, L.L.C. 47 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Ramsey's Mfg. Jewelers, Inc. v. Ramsey 924 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[5] New Orleans Checker Cabs, , (1944); Albrecht v. Del Bondio, 188 La.
McCain v. Designer Shoes Warehouse, LLC 864 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
New Orleans Checker Cabs, Inc. [v. Mumphrey, , (1944)], supra; Handy [v. Commander, 49 La.Ann.
Seafood Restaurant Services, Inc. v. Bonanno 665 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
New Orleans Checker Cabs, , (1944).
Gulf Coast Bank v. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co. 652 So. 2d 1306 La. 1995
New Orleans Checker Cabs, , (1944); Albrecht v. Del Bondio, 188 La.
Barrera v. Ciolino 636 So. 2d 218 La. 1994
216 (1924); New Orleans Checker Cabs, , (1944).
La. St. Optical of Jefferson Par., Inc. v. LA. STATE OPTICAL OF KENNER, INC. 469 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Givens Jewelers, Inc. v. Givens 380 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Buyers & Traders Service, Inc. v. Stewart 365 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Cf. N.O. Checker Cabs, , (1944); Robinson, 22 La.Bar J. 179 (1974); But cf. The Metalock Corp. v. Metal-Locking of La., Inc., (La.App.
Metalock Corp. v. Metal-Locking of Louisiana, Inc. 260 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
230 (1897); , (1944); Paducah Distilleries Co. v. Crescent Mfg.
House of Lights, Inc. v. Diecidue 222 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
The purpose and intent of the act is clearly indicated by its title which is: “To regulate the carrying on of business under an assumed or fictitious name and to provide penalties for the violation thereof.” , at p. 632 (1944), through O’Niell, Chief Justice, said: “The purpose of the act, obviously, is to prevent' the obtaining of credit under an assumed name.” In Toelke v. Toelke, 153 La.
Boogie Kings v. Guillory 188 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
New Orleans Checker Cabs, , ; Straus Frank Company v. Brown, 246 La.
Dynasty Room, Inc. v. Whiskey-A-Go-Go, Inc. 186 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
The defendant's contention that it has the exclusive right to use its corporate name is fully answered in the negative by the Supreme *404 , .
Straus Frank Company v. Brown 169 So. 2d 77 La. 1964
injunctive relief against the defendant user of a similar trade name because “the defendant was not guilty of unfair competition, specifically, of any representation that the business establishment conducted by him was the establishment owned and conducted by the plaintiff.” Prior to the decision in the Home Beverage Service case, this court observed in New Orleans Checker Cabs, , (1944) that, “The law’s protection against unfair competition by the use of another’s trade name rests upon the dece
Smithwick v. Lorants Army & Sporting Goods, Inc. 153 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Williams v. Ferguson 104 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
To the same effect is the holding in New Orleans Checker Cabs, Inc., v. Mumphrey, , .
White v. White 68 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Indeed, the case of New Orleans Checker Cabs, Inc., v. Mumphry, , , one of the cases cited by counsel in his brief, states the rule to be just the opposite, which is as follows: "The law's protection against unfair competition by the use of another's trade name rests upon the deceit or fraud which the newcomer in the business practices, not only upon the one already e
Credeur v. Jones 46 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
In so far as the trade-mark or trade-name is concerned, we agree with the trial judge that the plaintiffs have established their prior use thereof an-d are entitled to the continued use thereof, as set forth in the case of New Orleans Checker Cabs, Inc., v. Mumphrey, , , wherein Chief Justice O’Niell, as organ of the Court, stated: “The law’s protection against unfair competition by the use of another’s trade name rests upon the deceit or fraud which the newcomer in the -business practices — not