Legal Opinion

Seegmiller v. Hunt

Utah Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1964No. 9933PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CALLISTER, Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying them injunctive relief against the defendant’s use of the name “Mademoiselle” in connection with the latter’s operation of a beauty parlor. They also appeal from the lower court’s judgment that their registration of “Mademoiselle” as a trade name was invalid. Defendant cross-appeals from a denial of costs and damages.

On or about May 1, 1959, plaintiffs commenced operating a beauty parlor in Provo, Utah under the name of “Mademoiselle Salon of Beauty.” Prior to this time they had owned and operated a similar parlor under the name of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Budget System, Inc. v. Budget Loan & Finance PlanUtah Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Nisley Shoe Co. v. Nisley Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. George v. PetersonUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Pioneer Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pioneer Finance & Thrift Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API