BARNES ET AL.

v.

CITY OF GADSDEN, ALABAMA, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (27 total)

• Monroe Auto Equip. Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1964)
  …the legal standard is addressed to a factual content which consists necessarily of questions of fact. This is the view which most courts, especially in recent years, have taken. Tatko Bros. Slate Co. v. Hannon, 270 F. 2d 571 (C.A. 2), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 915, 80 S.Ct. 260, 4 L.Ed.2d 185; Houston Oil Field Material Co. v. Claypool, 269 F. 2d 134 (C.A. 5); Armour & Co. v. Wilson & Co., supra; Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of America, supra; Blish, Mize and Silliman Hardware Co. v. Time Saver Tool…
• Blisscraft OF Hollywood v. United Plastics Co., 294 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1961)
  …think that we are warranted in relying upon the “indeterminate general law.” Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc., supra, at page 540, note 1; American Safety Table Co. v. Schreiber, 2 Cir., 1959, 269 F. 2d 255, 271, certiorari denied 361 U.S. 915, 80 S.Ct. 259, 4 L.Ed.2d 185. The district court held that plaintiff had failed to establish that the appearance of its pitcher had acquired a secondary meaning. To establish a secondary meaning for an article it must be shown that the design is a…
• Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc., 302 F.2d 614 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …upon which depends (sic) the L-timate findings of patentability, as well as the standard of invention applied below, are questions of law fully reviewablo in this court.” Tatko Bros. Slate Co. v. Hannon, 270 F. 2d 571, 572 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 915, 80 S.Ct. 260, 4 L.Ed.2d 185 (1959); Armour & Co. v. Wilson & Co., 274 F. 2d 143, 151 (7th, Cir. 1960) (in banc). . See Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Co., supra, 340 U.S. at p. 151, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162; Amerock Corp.…

  ← 1 / 2 →