Panaview Door and Window Co. v. Van Ness
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, District Judge.
The complaint after amendments, as it now stands on the Motion to Dismiss, is a complaint for damages for unfair competition. There is no diversity of citizenship alleged. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is neither trade-mark nor trade-name, either registered or unregistered, asserted; and neither a copyright nor a patent is involved. 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051-1127.
The sole jurisdictional peg upon which plaintiff hangs its hat is the claim that, absent all 6f the above-mentioned elements, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051-1127, gives this court jurisdiction of unfair competition…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Pagliero v. Wallace China Co., LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Stauffer v. ExleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- American Auto. Ass'n (Incorporated) v. SpiegelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co. v. Las Palmas Food CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co.District Court, D. Nevada · 1973
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. ChurchDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1966
- United States v. Sig Ellingson & Co.District Court, D. Montana · 1958
- Chapman v. Local 104 of International Ass'n of MachinistsDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1961
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.