MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS CO.

v.

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• Isaacs v. United States, 301 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1962)
  …rules of evidence it was clearly admissible. See Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101; On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 756, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; Segal v. United States, 8 Cir., 246 F. 2d 814, 818, cert. den. 355 U.S. 894, 78 S.Ct. 269, 2 L.Ed.2d 192; Hill v. United States, 9 Cir., 261 F. 2d 483, 489; Moreland v. United States, 10 Cir., 270 F. 2d 887, 890; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 730; Wigmore on Evidence, 3 Ed. Vol. 4, § 1050. Considering the circumstances under w…
• Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …ntal Motors Corp. v. Continental Aviation Corp., 375 F. 2d 857 (5th Cir. 1967); American Foods, Inc. v. Golden Flake, Inc., 312 F. 2d 619 (5th Cir. 1963); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. All States Life Insurance Co., 246 F. 2d 161 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 894, 78 S.Ct. 268, 2 L.Ed.2d 192 (1957). See also Restatement of Torts § 729 (1938).6 An evaluation of these factors leads us to conclude that defendants’ use of the trademark “Domino’s Pizza” presents no likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception.…
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)
  …re the interviewer stated the similar parts of the plaintiff’s [*388] name several times in questions and then asked about the defendant company. Cf. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. All States Life Insurance Co., 246 F. 2d 161 (5th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 894, 78 S.Ct. 268, 2 L.Ed.2d 192. The surveys in this case do not share many of the weaknesses of the one in Cadillac. There was clear testimony that the sample size was sufficient, and that is not disputed. The survey was taken by professionals, who we…