Legal Opinion

Panaview Door and Window Co. v. Van Ness

District Court, S.D. California

Decided September 24, 1954No. 16767PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
  2. Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
  3. Pagliero v. Wallace China Co., LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
  4. Stauffer v. ExleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
  5. 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

  1. Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co. v. Las Palmas Food CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  2. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co.District Court, D. Nevada · 1973
  3. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. ChurchDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1966
  4. United States v. Sig Ellingson & Co.District Court, D. Montana · 1958
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API