Legal Opinion
Allen v. Standard Crankshaft & Hydraulic Co.
District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Decided July 2, 1964No. Civ. No. 1607PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CRAVEN, Chief Judge.
Having successfully prosecuted its action for trademark infringement and secured an injunction against the defendant’s further use of “Arewell”, plaintiff now moves the court to proceed with a determination of damages for the trademark infringement previously adjudged, or that the court appoint a Special Master to conduct an accounting for determining the damages.
It has been determined that there was no appreciable confusion of goods.1 The injunction was issued on the ground of likelihood existing of future confusion rather than proof of past confusion of goods. The market…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McLean v. FlemingSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Menendez v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Champion Spark Plug Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sweetarts, an Oregon Corporation v. Sunline, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, and Menlo F. Smith, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1971
- Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Atlanta Americana Motor Hotel Corp.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1966
- Siegerist v. Blaw-Knox Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
- Blanchard & Co. v. Charles Gilman & Son, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1965
- Walter L. Siegerist, Charles C. Litsch, and the Medart Engineering and Equipment Company v. Blaw-Knox Company, Blaw-Knox Company v. Walter L. Siegerist, Charles C. Litsch, and the Medart Engineering and Equipment CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969