Cases

HASTIE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, a manufacturer, and defendant, a retailer, are both members of the dress industry, selling dresses in commerce. Each is incorporated in Pennsylvania. Alleging a fraudulent and injurious use of a picture of plaintiff’s dress in defendant’s advertising, the plaintiff brought this action under the Lanh

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DALE A. KIMBALL, United States District Judge This matter is before the court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant HeartWise, Inc. d/b/a NatureWise (“NatureWise”), A hearing on the matter was held on August 29, 2016. At the hearing, Vitamins Online was represented by Chad Nydegger. NatureWise was represented by Brian Johnson, William B. Ingram, and

351 F.Supp.2d 571 (2005) AMSOUTH BANK Plaintiff v. Lois C. BOWENS and Zhinga A. Bowens Defendants No. CIV.A.4:04 CV 81LN. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division. January 7, 2005. Paul N. Davis, Emerson Barney Robinson, III, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff. Mary Judith Barnett, Barnett Law Firm,

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge. The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola), which produces Minute Maid orange juice, filed a complaint alleging that commercials of Procter & Gamble Company (P & G) for its Citrus Hill Select orange juice misrepresent the production process and quality of Citrus Hill Select orange juice. Specifically, Coca-Cola asserts that P & G’s commercials emphasize

SNEED, Circuit Judge: Jartran, Inc. appeals from a preliminary injunction against advertisements which, by describing its truck and trailer services in a certain fashion, compared such services to those of U-Haul International, Inc., the plaintiff below. The newspaper advertisements in question had headlines such as “Compare before you make a move,” “The new way to move yourself,” and “Why rent a truck that may deliver onl

617 F.Supp. 1443 (1985) HOLIDAY INNS, INC., A Tennessee corporation, and Harrah's Atlantic City, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. TRUMP, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. HARRAH'S INC., Third-Party Defendant. Civ. A. No. 85-2884. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. September 23, 1985. *1444

726 F.Supp. 121 (1989) MONOFLO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Ekkehard SAHM, and Kunststoff Kontor GmbH, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 89-1285-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. November 29, 1989. *122 Robert A. Vanderhye, Nixon & Vanderhye P.C., Arlington, Va., for plaintiff. Daniel E.

408 F.Supp. 1160 (1976) ALBERTO-CULVER COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. The GILLETTE COMPANY, a corporation, and J. Walter Thompson Company, a corporation, Defendants. No. 74C2017. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 10, 1976. *1161 W. Thomas Hofstetter, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Russell M. B

BELL, Circuit Judge: Appellant brought this action in the district court seeking relief against a competitor in the aluminum shutter business for what was styled false representations and misrepresentations in the origin and description of goods in commerce. Jurisdiction was predicated on § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 112

*280OPINION Before ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.* ELY, Circuit Judge: Acting individually and, purportedly as class representatives, appellants initiated this action against The Coca-Cola Company for damages. The complaint alleged that Coca-Cola had engaged in a nationw

681 F.2d 1159 216 U.S.P.Q. 1077 U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.JARTRAN, INC., a Florida corporation; and Sandra C. Tinsley,Inc., Defendants-Appellants,James A. Ryder, an individual, Defendant.JARTRAN, INC., Counterclaimant,v.U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Counterdefendant. No. 81-5195. United States Court

578 F.Supp. 196 (1984) PEPSICO, INC., and Wilson Sporting Goods Co., Plaintiffs, v. DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 83 Civ. 2317 (RJW). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 9, 1984. *197 Friedman & Gass, P.C., New York City, and Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs; Arthur

BREYER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff in this antitrust action, Clamp-All Corporation, sued the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (“CISPI”) and several of its members, charging that they had unlawfully restrained trade in (or monopolized or attempted to monopolize) the sale of hub-less pipe couplings by means of improper pricing, improper behavior in respect to “quality-certification” prov

358 F.Supp. 1230 (1973) ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 69-750-G. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. May 30, 1973. *1231 *1232 Daniel F. Featherston, Jr., Boston, Mass., for plaintiff. Norman A. Hubley, Boston, Mass.

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge: This appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying a motion of plaintiff, Ives Laboratories, Inc., for a preliminary injunction, 455 F.Supp. 939 (1978), raises interesting questions of the application of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Company, 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964) and Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.,

577 F.Supp. 708 (1983) William A. SCHROEDER, in his capacity as a member and officer of the Graphic Communications International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, an unincorporated association and Graphic Communications International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs, v. Siro J. LOTITO, Jr., d/b/a Arrow Letter Shop a/k/a Arrow Printing Company, Arrow Print Shop, and Imperial-Arrow Associated Services of Rhode Island, a non-busines

259 F.Supp. 383 (1966) GENERAL POOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HALLMARK POOL CORPORATION, Robert Hall, and Richard Bryant, Defendants. No. 66 C 754. United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D. October 19, 1966. *384 Emanuel Gordon, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff; Hume, Groen, Clement & Hume, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.

McALLISTER, Circuit Judge. Appellant seeks review of an order dismissing its complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action. It is the contention of appellant that it alleged in its complaint sufficient facts to maintain its claim against appellees, for false description and representation, under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a). The above section of the Lanham Act provides:

MEMORANDUM DECISION MARSHALL, District Judge. Plaintiff Westinghouse Electric Corporation has moved to dismiss various counterclaims filed by seven defendants — Atlas Corporation, Anaconda Company, Kerr-McGee Corporation, Homestake Mining Company, Western Nuclear, Inc., Getty Oil Company, and Utah International, Inc. Westinghouse’s motions fall into three categories. First, it challenges the standing of f

375 F.Supp. 777 (1974) SKIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant. No. 74 C 22. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. May 6, 1974. *778 *779 Thomas A. Reynolds, Jr. and Winston & Strawn, Stanley A. Walton, III, Chicago, Ill.,