EUROQUILT, INC.
v.
SCANDIA DOWN CORP. ET AL.

U.S. | 1986-04-28
No. 85-1038
475 U.S. 1147 Supreme Court of the United States (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases
Dissent
Justice White,

Justice White,

dissenting.

One of the questions presented by this case is whether, in a trademark infringement action under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), a district court’s finding of “likelihood of confusion” is reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard, as a finding of fact, or de novo, as a conclusion of law. As I have previously noted, the Courts of Appeals are divided on this question. Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc. v. Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc., 459 U. S. 916 (1982) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Khimani, 892 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir. 1990)
    …hey can come with safety to that which they are enjoined from doing. Eskay Drugs v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, 188 F. 2d 430, 432 (5th Cir.1951); see Scandia Down Corp. v. Euorquilt, Inc., 772 F. 2d 1423, 1432 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1147, 106 S.Ct. 1801, 90 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986) (district courts in trademark cases “possess[] substantial discretion to decide how close is too close, once an infringer has committed a contempt of the original injunction”); World’s Finest Chocolate, Inc. v.…
  • U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 1223 (10th Cir. 1988)
    …I. Somewhat inconsistently, USI also asserted that FEA purchased worthless health spa contracts from HI, in order to inflate FEA’s book value. . See also Chung, Yong Il v. Overseas Navigation Co., 774 F. 2d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1147, 106 S.Ct. 1802, 90 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986) (“Prejudgment interest ... is in the nature of compensation for the use of funds.”); Myron v. Chicoine, 678 F. 2d 727, 734 (7th Cir.1982) (quoting Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F. 2d 1064, 1075 (7th Cir.197…
  • Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 834 F.2d 368 (3d Cir. 1987)
    …e of likelihood of confusion, the validity of this approach has been largely undermined by the 1985 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).2 See Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F. 2d 1423, 1427-29 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1147, 106 S.Ct. 1801, 90 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986). This amendment made clear that a district court’s conclusions cannot be regarded as pertaining to a “question of law” — and thus reviewed de novo— merely because they are based on evidence that is theoretica…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw