opinion: MARCUS BREIER SONS, Inc. v. MARVLO FABRICS, Inc.
  No. 182, Docket 21240.
  United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
  March 7, 1949
  Herman Seid, of New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.
  Louis Barnett, of New York City (Albert T. Scharps, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
  Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying its motion for summary judgment upon its first counterclaim. In Drittel v. Friedman, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 653, this court held that an appeal will not lie from such an order. It is • purely interlocutory, inasmuch as it does no more than would an order under earlier practice overruling a demurrer. In other words, it leaves the issues raised by the defendant’s first counterclaim and the reply thereto to be tried. We may add that this disposition by Judge Kaufman of the above issues seems to have been wise. Disputes between parties as to trade-mark validity and infringement can rarely be determined satisfactorily on a motion for summary judgment. The record makes it clear that such was the situation in the case at bar. In any event as the order was not final no appeal from it was permissible.
  Appeal dismissed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto chemical drug food processing oil refining textile electronic alcohol or tobacco other unclear