Legal Opinion
Vita-Var Corp. v. Alumatone Corp.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided March 11, 1949No. 8413-YPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
YANKWICH, District Judge.
The above-entitled cause heretofore tried, argued and submitted, is now decided as follows:
Judgment is ordered as follows: (1) that plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint against the defendant, and (2) that defendant take nothing by the counterclaim ágainst the plaintiff. Neither side to recover costs.
Comment
The litigation relates to Trade Mark Registration No. 252,109. I am Jed to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved itself entitled to recover either for infringement of this trademark or unfair competition in relation to it. The essential principles…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. SahatiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd.District Court, S.D. California · 1945
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. DunnellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- California Fruit Growers Exchange v. Windsor Beverages, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
- Modesto Creamery v. Stanislaus Creamery Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Surgicenters of America, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. Medical Dental Surgeries, Co., an Oregon Corporation Dba Medical Dental SurgicentersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. FrolichDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1961
- Alumatone Corp. v. Vita-Var Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Application of Ada Milling CoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
- Coca-cola Co. v. Seven-up Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.