Plough, Inc. v. Kreis Laboratories, a Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentPope, Circuit Judge
I am in complete accord with the ma^ jority opinion’s notation that the initial fact in this case is the consent judgment which we are required to respect and enforce. As stated in Artvale, Inc. v. Rugby Fabrics Corp., 2 Cir., 303 F.2d 283, 284, which is cited in the opinion, “A consent decree represents an agreement by the parties which the court cannot expand or contract.”
We must note also that in a ease of this kind the question of likelihood of confusion is one for this court to decide. As Judge Barnes well stated in Sleeper Lounge Company v. Bell Manufacturing Co., 9 Cir., 253 F.2d 720,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. SahatiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- The Fleischmann Distilling Corp., a Corporation, Etc. v. Maier Brewing Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Q-Tips, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.