TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 36, BUILDING MATERIAL & DUMP TRUCK DRIVERS

v.

EDWARDS

Citator

Cited By (46 total)

• Maison Realty, Inc. v. Meredith Corp., 633 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
  …owner is not, as a matter of right, entitled to recover the infringer’s profits. Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F. 2d 1480, 1495 (11th Cir.1983) (Held: All monetary awards under this section are subject to the principles of equity.), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102, 104 S.Ct. 1599, 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); Borg-Warner Corp. v. York-Shipley, Inc., 293 F. 2d 88 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 939, 82 S.Ct. 381, 7 L.Ed.2d 338 (1961); Williamson-Dickie Mfg. Co. v. Davis Mfg. Co., 251 F. 2d 924 (3d Cir.1958); Fabe…
• McDONALD'S Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 1998)
  …efendant without the registrant’s consent and that the unauthorized use was likely to deceive, cause confusion, or result in mistake. See Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F. 2d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir.1983) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102, 104 S.Ct. 1599, 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). Our research, however, has not revealed any case where this Court has addressed the appropriate preliminary injunction standard for evaluating whether the defendant acted without the registrant’s authorizati…
• Dieter v. B & H Indus. OF Sw. Fla., Inc., 880 F.2d 322 (11th Cir. 1989)
  …, the plaintiff must show, first, that its mark is valid and, second, that the defendant’s use of the contested mark is likely to cause confusion. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a); Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F. 2d 1480,1491 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1102, 104 S.Ct. 1599, 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). Because Dieter’s mark is “incontestable” its validity is conclusively presumed, see infra, Part III, and accordingly the only factual issue for the trial court’s determination was whether B & H’s use of the…