NORRIS

v.

INDIANA

Citator

Cited By (41 total)

• NEW York State Ass'n FOR Retarded Child., Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …interpretation, the “Consent Judgment is no mere contract,” 596 F. 2d at 37. . Some cases have steadfastly hewed to the Swift line. See, e.g., Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. American Oil Co., 405 F. 2d 803, 813 (8 Cir.) (Blackmun, J.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1747, 23 L.Ed.2d 218 (1969); United States v. Work Wear Corp., 602 F. 2d 110, 112 n. 6 (6 Cir. 1979); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inn, 645 F. 2d 239, 240 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1053 (1981); Roberts v. St. Regis Paper Co., 653 F…
• Squirtco v. The Seven-Up Co., 628 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1980)
  …nce of likelihood of confusion. E. g., James Bur-rough Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc., 540 F. 2d 266 (7th Cir. 1976) (15%); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. American Oil Co., 259 F.Supp. 559 (E.D.Mo.1966), aff’d, 405 F. 2d 803 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1745, 23 L.Ed.2d 218 (1969). “[I]n a trademark infringement action the kind of product, its cost and the conditions of purchase are important factors in considering whether the degree of care exercised by the purchaser can eliminate the li…
• King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Indus., 418 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1969)
  …the alleged danger of confusion existed, and the point is not pressed on appeal, . While we have no occasion to consider the validity of the formulation in Sinclair Oil & Refining Co. v. American Oil Co., 405 F. 2d 803, 813 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1745, 23 L.Ed.2d 218 (1969), as applied to the case there in hand, we regard it as imposing too severe a requirement as a general rule.…