For twenty-five years plaintiff company was licensed by X manufacturing company to sell furnaces made by X in Kentucky and to use the trade-mark "Monarch" thereon along with plaintiff's name, leaving X's name off the furnace. After the termination of this license plaintiff continued to sell other furnaces with the mark "Monarch" affixed thereto. Four years later X licensed defendant company to sell X's furnaces in Kentucky and to use the mark "Monarch" on the same. Plaintiff brought suit to enjoin defendant's use of said. mark on furnaces sold in Kentucky. Held, licensing use of mark by X to plaintiff was proper and X had not lost ownership of the mark by abandonment; therefore injunction denied. Stratton & Terstegge Co. v. Stiglitz Furnace Co., 258 Ky. 678, 81 S. W. (2d) 1 (1935).
TRADE MARKS-EFFECT OF LICENSING USE OF TRADE MARK BY SALES AGENT ON RIGHTS OF OWNER OF THE MARK,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol34/iss3/27