Legal Opinion
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos
Washington Supreme Court
Decided February 26, 1987No. 52717-2PublishedCited by 140 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDore, J.
We are asked to decide whether a trade name infringement constitutes a Consumer Protection Act violation justifying the award of attorney fees and expenses. We hold that it does, and reverse the Court of Appeals decision denying Nordstrom reasonable attorney fees.
Facts
The pertinent facts of this case are basically undisputed. Nordstrom and Tampourlos had an agreement for a number of years in which Tampourlos would operate a beauty salon in four Nordstrom stores. By 1981, Tampourlos operated a single beauty salon in the Bellevue Nordstrom store, and this was to be closed in January 1982…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Short v. DemopolisWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Anhold v. DanielsWashington Supreme Court · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by140 opinions
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- Boeing Company v. Sierracin CorporationWashington Supreme Court · 2000
135 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.