Legal Opinion
Anti-Monopoly, Inc., and Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., and Counter-Claimant-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 26, 1982No. 81-4281PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:
This is the second appeal in this case. Our first opinion is reported in Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 9 Cir., 1979, 611 F.2d 296 (Anti-Monopoly I). On remand the district court again found that the “Monopoly” trademark was valid and had been infringed by Anti-Monopoly, Inc. Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., N.D.Cal., 1981, 515 F.Supp. 448 (Anti-Monopoly II). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. Prior Proceedings.
General Mills is the successor to Parker Brothers, Inc., which had produced and sold a game it called…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Boston Athletic Association v. Mark Sullivan, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- Levi Strauss & Co., a Delaware Corporation v. Blue Bell, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Avery Dennison Corp. v. SumptonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Wsm, Incorporated v. Dennis E. Hilton and Country Shindig Opry, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.