TISCH ET AL.

v.

ZABLE

Citator

Cited By

• Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …otection. However, “[t]he right granted to the owner of a registered trademark is a monopoly and should not be extended unless the owner is clearly entitled thereto.” S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson, 266 F. 2d 129, 136 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 820, 80 S.Ct. 65, 4 L.Ed.2d 65 (1959). Since defendants’ use of the mark “Domino’s Pizza” is not likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive the public, the district court’s order and injunction to the contrary are set aside, and the judgment is REVERSED.…
• Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir. 1978)
  …h whiskey). These decisions can be contrasted with cases in which use of a trade name was not prpscribed, cases which we believe bear a greater resemblance to this appeal: S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson, 266 F. 2d 129 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 820, 80 S.Ct. 65, 4 L.Ed.2d 65 (1959) (floor wax and cleaner and furniture polish with brooms and mops); S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson, 116 F. 2d 427 (2d Cir. 1940) (floor wax and cleaner and furniture polish with .fabric cleaner). Furthermore,…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Carr v. Dist. OF Columbia, 543 F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
  …572 (4th Cir. 1963); F. P. Baugh, Inc. v. Little Lake Lumber Co., 297 F. 2d 692, 696, 3 A.L.R.3d 625 (9th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 909, 82 S.Ct. 1256, 8 L.Ed.2d 404 (1962). . Lietz v. Flemming, 264 F. 2d 311, 313 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 820, 80 S.Ct. 66, 4 L.Ed.2d 66 (1959); Rawls v. United States, 331 F. 2d 21, 28 (8th Cir. 1964). . See text supra at notes 16-19. . We address these problems not only because our leave for new litigation may be necessary, see Gueder v. Paeschae & Frey…