/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query unfair and competition returned 1206 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Requires a plaintiff to prove that an allegedly
973 OPINION/ORDER
The District Court held that Cubatabaco's COHIBA mark was sufficiently famous in the United States by the time General Cigar. Began selling COHIBA cigars in the United States that the mark was entitled to protection. We hold that even were the famous marks doctrine to be recognized ­ an issue we do not decide here ­ Cubatabaco is barred by the United States' embargo in force against Cuba from acquiring property rights in United States trademarks via the famous marks doctrine. The Cuban COHIBA mark was sufficiently well known in the United States that it deserved protection under the so called
963 OPINION/ORDER
This is a trade dress infringement action brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That Travis is liable for manufacturing the molds for Joy's planter. Because Duraco's claim is predicated upon infringement of the trade dress of the product itself. Constitute inherently distinctive trade dress thus serving as a designator of origin that will protect the plaintiff's product design features against copying. Insofar as it is not a symbol according to which one can relate the signifier (the trademark. Along with the degree to which the mark describes the product is unsuited for application to the product itself. We also think that there is a proper set of circumstances for treating a product configuration as inherently distinctive. These circumstances are characterized by a high probability that a product configuration serves a virtually exclusively identifying function for consumers where the concerns over
956 OPINION/ORDER
Who was a member of this panel. Are issues not easily resolved by reference to existing state law. Because we agree with the district court that ITC lacks standing to pursue a false advertising claim against Although the term
948 SCOSCHE V. VISOR GEAR
924 ZENITH ELECTRONICS CORP. V. ELO TOUCHSYSTEMS, INC.

With him on the brief was Michael G. The questions raised are whether a federal unfair competition claim irreconcilably conflicts with and is therefore barred by federal patent or antitrust law. That these statements were false. Elo Touch argued that its activities in support of its patent rights were governed by federal patent law and applicable antitrust rules. Thus the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws are in effect
917 OPINION/ORDER
The parties have briefed this case under Pennsylvania law and thus we will decide this case the way we believe the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would decide it. The facts are not in dispute. They claimed to have purchased
890 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were William B. Of counsel was Abraham W. McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Charles Rosenberg and Cynthia A. BACKGROUND Optivus and Loma Linda are the purported exclusive licensee and assignee. The '287 patent is directed to a proton beam therapy facility that The generates a proton beam and delivers it to one of multiple treatment rooms. treatment rooms are equipped with movable gantries that enable an operator to direct the beam to a patient at a specific angle. The proton beam therapy system is illustrated in figure 1 of the '287 patent. Which is reproduced below. 05 1518. 1575 2 Claim 1 of the '287 patent is the only independent claim and provides. Transporting the proton beam away from the axis of rotation and returning the proton beam on a path perpendicular to and intersecting the axis at a target isocenter within the patient whereby with rotation of the gantry the proton beam is delivered to the target isocenter from several different angles and ... a control system for the proton beam therapy system including an operator controllable means for (1) selectively switching the first switching magnet between its first and second states and (2) controlling the rotational position of the first gantry to direct the proton beam exiting the first switching magnet in its first state to the target isocenter for the first treatment station along one or more controlled angles. 05 1518.
887 OPINION/ORDER
This is a trade dress infringement action in which plaintiff Versa Products Company. Which Versa maintains copies the product configuration of the B 316.[fn1] The action was brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That there was a likelihood of confusion of the sources of Bifold's Domino Junior and Versa's B 316 valves. In connection with which we are called upon to determine whether the jurisprudence that lowers the standard to a
865 OPINION/ORDER
LLC were on brief. Miller were on brief. Alleging that it was a price fixing purchasing pool. OSF was tasked with designing and marketing a UNIX based operating system known as OSF/1 that would become an industry standard for UNIX users. Which essentially offered competing suppliers the opportunity to submit their products to be integrated into the OSF/1 operating system.

843 DUNCAN MCCOY V. MITSUBOSHI
821 OPINION/ORDER
Stanko's primary argument is that the district court1 erred in concluding that The Honorable Joseph Bataillon. Were convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts of violating the FMIA. Stanko sought a declaratory judgment that he was not prohibited from possessing firearms under § 922(g)(1) because his conviction fell within the § 921(a)(20)(A) exclusion. The district court reasoned that: (1) the exclusion was
792 OPINION/ORDER
000 jury verdicts are upheld. There is no need for you to decide the summary judgment issues.
792 OPINION/ORDER
Was also named as a defendant in this action and appears as a party in the caption of this appeal. That decision is not challenged by Optimum on appeal. Is therefore deemed waived. 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) (
782 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: If this were a sci fi melodrama. I Barbie was born in Germany in the 1950s as an adult collector's item. Aqua is a Danish band that has. (The lyrics are in the Appendix.). MCA also brought a defamation claim against Mattel for statements Mattel made about MCA while this lawsuit was pending. Mattel appeals the district court's ruling that Barbie Girl is a parody of Barbie and a nominative fair use. That MCA's use of the term Barbie is not likely to confuse consumers as to Mattel's affiliation with Barbie Girl or dilute the Barbie mark. All three foreign defendants are affiliated members of Universal Music Group and have an active relationship with each other and with domestic members of the Group. This conduct was expressly aimed at. Mattel's trademark claims would not have arisen
773 03-6067 -- STAR FUEL MARTS V. SAM'S EAST INC. -- 03/19/2004

(2) Sam's sales to its members were not made with the intent and purpose of inducing the purchase of other merchandise or of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor. The member price is five cents per gallon lower than the price for nonmembers. Ninety percent of the gas sold at the Memorial Store is to members. Sam's sells only unleaded and premium gasoline.

The district court found that Sam's gasoline operations were

773 HUNTER DOUGLAS V. HARMONIC DESIGN
763 OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht.
763 OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht.
760 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a trademark case. The contest is between a large Mexican grocery chain that has long used the mark. A small American chain that was the first to use the mark in the United States. In a locality where shoppers were familiar with the Mexican mark. The chain was quite successful. Two of the Baja stores were in Tijuana. Douray and Rafid have since controlled the two stores through various limited liability corporations.1 In 1995. Which was after the opening of the Dallos' first store and before the opening of their second. It did nothing about the Dallos' store despite Grupo Gigante's knowledge that the Dallos were using
758 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Agarwal was required to seek authorization from ProMed's medical director. The twelve month contract was extended automatically for an unlimited number of additional twelve month periods. The Agreement was extended to June 1. By the automatic renewal pro1 As Agarwal is appealing the district court's order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. We accept as true the factual allegations in Agarwal's Second Amended Complaint. 2 An independent practice association (IPA) is an organization that contracts with individual physicians to provide services to the enrollees of managed health care plans (i.e. The bankruptcy court granted both motions but permitted Agarwal to file an amended complaint.4 Agar4 We note that the contract at issue here was. Which was the date ProMed filed its bankruptcy petition. We look to whether the contract was executory at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (holding that to determine whether a contract is executory.
758 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether retailers have standing under S 43(a) of the Lanham Act. I. Appellants are a putative nationwide class of retail sellers of motor oil and other engine lubricants that purportedly compete with Slick 50. The Appellees were enjoined from disseminating false or unsubstantiated claims regarding Slick 50 and agreed to provide $10 million in discounts. Certain state consumer protection statutes that are not at issue in this appeal. At any time between the time Slick 50 was first marketed to the public and the present. Have offered for sale. The harm the Appellants allege they suffered is loss of sales of products they sell. The District Court held that only
746 HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC.

That it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial. Dillard is a retail department store. Harold's is a retail clothing store with 22 stores in 7 states. Harold's represents to its customers that the original print fabric garments are available solely from Harold's. Harold's offers unique custom printed fabric designs in skirts and other sportswear that are not available from Harold's competitors. Oklahoma were offering for sale skirts with print fabric patterns identical to print skirts that Harold's had sold during the previous 1991 to 1992 sales season. The Dillard skirts were priced at $28.00 to $30.00. 223435. from Wadesboro were made from fabric similar or identical to fabric used by CMT to manufacture skirts for Harold's. That Dillard could sell the garments in markets where Harold's did not have stores. Ruling that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act because the state law claim was qualitatively different from. 1994 order was fully 160 days out of time.
729 OPINION/ORDER
P.A. were on brief for appellant.

729 OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The backdrop for this case is the competitive business of promoting and operating professional motorcycle road racing on paved oval tracks. Classes of races are typically defined by the type of motorcycles run in the race. The AMA is an Ohio not for profit corporation with its principal place of business in Westerville. Edmondson paid the AMA a sanctioning fee with respect to his races in order to advertise that his races were sanctioned by the AMA. Nor was it required to do so for any reason. 4 EDMONDSON v. All races or meets were to be designated as
729 ELMER V. ICC FABRICATING, INC.
719 OPINION/ORDER
SBS and HBC are the two largest owners of Spanish language radio stations in the United States. Courts have played an extremely important role in shaping the reach of the Act and the requirements for stating a cause of action under each section. 1579 n.8 (11th Cir. 1985) (
717 OPINION/ORDER
We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order.
709 EARL E. THOMPSON, SR., V. HENRY HAYNES

2001) ( Judgment ).
704 PRO-MOLD V. GREAT LAKES
702 INTERGRAPH CORP V. INTEL CORP

Of counsel on the brief were David Vance Lucas. With him on the brief was Joel M. Of counsel on the brief were Peter . Intel is a manufacturer of high performance computer microprocessors. The microprocessors are sold to producers of various computer based devices. Who adapt and integrate the microprocessors into products that are designed and sold for particular uses. These producers are called original equipment manufacturers. Intergraph Corporation is an OEM. Sells computer workstations that are used in producing computer aided graphics. From 1987 to 1993 Intergraph's workstations were based on a high performance microprocessor developed by the Fairchild division of National Semiconductor. Embodying what is called the
702 OPINION/ORDER
We agree with the District Court that there is no likelihood of confusion
697 OPINION/ORDER
Cullina were on brief. Buonomo were on brief. One is to curb
697 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO. V. FCC

With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for

petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold

Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union.


697 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Frederick Beckner III were on the brief for intervenor Time Warner Entertainment Co. The first type is horizontal. Addressing operators' scale:
695 PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)

Both of which accompanied the release.

695 PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)

Both of which accompanied the release.

695 OPINION/ORDER
1 upheld the decision of its Administrative Law Judge (
690 OPINION/ORDER
3) found that the compensatory award was supported by the evidence. Facts Conseco is a Delaware financial services company with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The facts and issues in this case arise from actions taken by North American to acquire information about individuals that is contained in Conseco's confidential files. Which is sent to Conseco's branch offices throughout the country in the form of
682 AL-SITE CORP. V. VSI INT'L, INC. (3/30/1999, NO. 97-1593)

With him on the brief was Stephen E. Of counsel was Oren J. With him on the brief were Robert S. Of counsel on the brief were Richard L. Of counsel was Myles G. Magnivision is the assignee of U.S. The jury further concluded that the Magnivision patents were not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Would have been literally infringed by VSI's Version 2 hanger tag. Contends that the district court's claim construction was correct but challenges the jury's determinations for lack of substantial evidence to support a verdict.

682 OPINION/ORDER
Is a manufacturer of specialty motor vehicles. Among the replicars it manufactures and promotes for sale are race cars and roadsters modeled after the
675 OPINION/ORDER
Orfanedes was on the briefs. Doane was on the briefs. I. Background The key issue in the case is which party first used the SUNTECH trademark. Its application was granted in November. MSI discovered that Sunmatch was advertising SUN TECH tools in the United States and became concerned about Sunmatch's sales of private label tools in the U.S. The only affidavit MSI submitted did not raise a dispute over any material fact because it was not based upon the affiant's personal knowledge of the events surrounding the beginning of the relationship between the two companies. The court determined that Sunmatch owned the SUNTECH mark principally because it was the first to use it. (c) deciding that there was
675 OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Richard L. With him on the brief was Camille L. Seeking a declaratory judgment that the two patents were invalid and unenforceable. The unfair competition and antitrust counterclaims were severed from the remainder of the case. The second case was stayed pending resolution of the patent issues. Kemin Foods is the assignee of one of the two patents in suit. Kemin Foods is the exclusive licensee of that patent. The patents in suit include process and product claims pertaining to purified lutein that is extracted from plants. Lutein is a carotenoid (i.e. Was effectively precluded from doing so by a pretrial order striking a supplemental expert report proffered by Kemin. The jury found that the asserted claims were not invalid. The jury also found that the asserted claims of the '714 patent were not infringed. 06 1002 2 that claim 1 of the '564 patent was infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The court also rejected PIVEG's claim that both patents were unenforceable because of inequitable conduct.
673 OPINION/ORDER
Facts Fieldale is an integrated poultry company which enters into poultry growing contracts with growers. The Londons leased two other 1 A broiler is a baby chick. farms. The contracts are similar in content. Each contract is a separate agreement for the Londons' various farms: (1) contract for Green Meadows No. 1. The contracts are to run indefinitely or until thirty days after notice of termination by either party. The contracts also give Fieldale the option to terminate on only seven days notice when continuing the contractual relationship would have detrimental effects on Fieldale's business. The Londons are responsible for providing care and oversight for the broilers during the full term of the growth cycle. The Londons' responsibility is vital to the success of the business and encompasses a variety of duties. Such as maintaining adequate water and temperature for the baby chicks and
665 OPINION/ORDER
Which are known also as
665 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY CSB is a New Jersey chartered. It has been selling CollegeSure(R) CDs which are deposit contracts designed to provide sufficient funds to cover future costs of college education. We deal only with the second action and thus our further references are to that case. Was unconstitutional. Because the abrogation was not a proper exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers. It also pleaded a common law tort of unfair competition but we will not discuss that claim further as the district court dismissed it. Was an unconstitutional attempt to abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court found that the constructive waiver doctrine did not apply because Florida Prepaid was engaging in a core government function. CSB appealed from the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim to this court.2 We will affirm the district court's holding that the TRCA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment powers as applied to the present case.
663 OPINION/ORDER
ACRA claims that Lexmark's advertising and promotional materials mislead customers into thinking the post sale restriction is enforceable and that they actually receive a discounted price for the special cartridges. The patented cartridge is sold at a special price subject to a restriction that it may be used only once. A regular price cartridge without these terms is available1 Consumers can opt to buy Lexmark cartridges without the Prebate post sale restriction. At the higher price.2 The packaging when the Prebate program was launched in 1997 contained slightly different language: IMPORTANT! It is a violation of this agreement and/or it is unlawful to resell. The distinction drawn by Lexmark is unnecessary to our resolution of the present case. Which is not a direct challenge to the terms of the contract itself. 1 ARIZONA CARTRIDGE REMANUFACTURERS v. The company estimates that 50 percent of the cartridges sold are returned as empty cartridges to Lexmark. Cartridge returns have increased by 300 percent since the implementation of the Prebate program.
658 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The main issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed several claims of Daewoo Motor America. Were violated after a Korean bankruptcy court approved a sale of the assets and liabilities of the Korean parent company of Daewoo America and the defendants then sold in the United States automobiles manufactured by GMDAT. Daewoo America was a claimant represented by counsel in the Korean bankruptcy proceedings but. I. BACKGROUND Daewoo America was incorporated in 1997 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Daewoo Motor Co. The parties agree that
656 CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP. (4/30/1998, NO. 95-8960)

Circuit Judge:

Defendant appellee's petition for rehearing is denied. Plaintiff Appellant's petition for rehearing is granted. 1997 and published at 130 F.3d 1009 is vacated. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof:

656 BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE.">

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
656 CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP. (4/30/1998, NO. 95-8960)

Circuit Judge:

Defendant appellee's petition for rehearing is denied. Plaintiff Appellant's petition for rehearing is granted. 1997 and published at 130 F.3d 1009 is vacated. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof:

656 BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE.">

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
646 TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC
643 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Henry Lee Pickett is the owner of a cattle producing farm located thirty five miles south of Montgomery. In this class action lawsuit he is the lead plaintiff representing a national class of cattle producers who sell their fed cattle cows raised specifically for slaughter to meat packing plants exclusively on the cash market. Is the largest meat packing company in the United States. Are best understood after a discussion of the cattle and meat packing industries and the market where they meet. I.
641 OPINION/ORDER
WITT hired away several of ATC's other employees and created a transmission parts catalog that was almost identical to the ATC catalog. On which Hester had worked while he was with * The Honorable Donald E. I There are three areas of dispute between ATC and the Appellees: (1) the relationship between ATC and Kenny Hester. Produced a flyer indicating that WITT was
641 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Michael L. 914 (
636 MONEY STATN INC V. FRS
631 CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Camp Creek Hospitality Inns. We affirm in part and reverse in part.<p> Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032868p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032868p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/95-8960.man.html">CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Camp Creek Hospitality Inns. We affirm in part and reverse in part.<p> Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002319.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Warm Products (Warm) is a distributor of wholesale products. Including cotton batting marketed under the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021537.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which entity was acquired in 1998 by Roche Holding. The purpose of the agreement was to facilitate the development. Technology.1 In ECL is used in testing human body fluids for the presence of substances like proteins and viruses. The fluid is added to a test kit called an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/001368p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Declining to overturn the jury's verdict for LePage's in its suit against 3M under Section 2 of the Sherman Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064292p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will. Will order the reinstatement of Broadcom's state and common law claims. Mobile Wireless Telephony and the UMTS Standard Mobile wireless telephony is the general term for describing the technology and equipment used in the operation of cellular telephones. It is essential that all components involved in this transmission of information be able to communicate seamlessly with one another. Industry wide standards are necessary to ensure their interoperability. Standards are determined privately by industry groups known as standards determining organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1626.html">ILAN GOLAN (DOING BUSINESS AS GOLAN PRODUCTS) V. PINGEL<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1553.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Jody L. Of counsel was Jacob D. With him on the brief was Bradley D. The documents describing the procurement obligations for California public projects state that when a product is referenced in a RFP by the manufacturer's name. All standard materials and features of that product are deemed to be inherently specified. Process or specified patent or proprietary name and/or by name of manufacturer is indicated. Inc. is not a party to this appeal. 04 1553 2 and/or process desired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Berthelsen</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1296.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Berthelsen</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1031.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: The caption on the coversheet should read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1331.html">BRAVO SYSTEMS V. CONTAINMENT TECH.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug12/03-51118-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> House of Vacuums is an independent vacuum cleaner Scott Fetzer sued sales and repair shop located in San Antonio. Repairs all types of vacuum cleaners. is not an authorized Kirby distributor or service center. Farmer neither signed nor returned the agreement but claims to have resolved the dispute informally through phone calls to Scott Fetzer No. 03 51118 3representatives. action. Scott Fetzer took no further version of that ad is the subject of the current litigation. ad begins with the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002373.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Inc. has been manufacturing and distributing commercial electronic security control systems since 1967.1 Its devices are designed to track the physical location of goods and are sold to retailers to prevent merchandise theft. It is one of the two dominant manufacturers in the retail security products market. Which is registered with the United States Trademark office.2 1. Our recitation of the facts will be brief. Its principal and most successful products are electronic article surveillance systems designed to alert retailers when items are removed from confined areas. The systems work by placing circuited tags on merchandise which are deactivated at the time of sale. If the tags are not deactivated. Checkpoint Systems also manufactures electronic access control systems in the form of security cards that permit selected personnel to have access to restricted areas. Checkpoint Systems intends to use these electronic access control systems to make </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/993609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By competing Complications from an automobile accident have prevented Judge Gibson from reviewing this opinion prior to its being filed. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. To whom the case was assigned with the consent of the parties. I. Background HBA is a nonprofit organization representing the home building industry in metropolitan St. The HBA shows are held at the St. L&L is a recently started Minnesota company that promotes home shows across the country. L&L's show was held at the Convention Center. The 1997 L&L show was small. Responding to complaints from visitors who attended L&L's first show thinking it was the more substantial HBA event. Convention Center officials told L&L that 2 advertising for any future shows would have to identify L&L as the sponsor to prevent public confusion. Some visitors to the January 1998 show testified that they attended under the mistaken belief it was an HBA event. The district court found that HBA's home shows have acquired secondary meaning in the St. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1466.html">GLAXO, INC. V. NOVOPHARM, LTD.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972397.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Concluding that the conduct of Rouse and B&W was justified as legitimate competition. The District Court granted summary judgment on English's statutory claims because there was no factual basis to support them. An employee of Rouse who was also a representative of B&W. The letter stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1363p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The contesting parties in this case are two labor organizations who vied for the right to represent the nurses at eight health care facilities in Pennsylvania and Delaware. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for PSEA on nine of the claims on the ground that they were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. PNA is both a professional association of nurses and a nurses' labor union. PSEA is a school employees' labor union. Who were still employees of PNA. PNA also contends that the individual defendants who were its former labor representatives failed to negotiate in good faith successor collective bargaining agreements on behalf of their PNA units. PSEA removed the case to federal court on the ground that some of the claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). X and XI to the extent that they were based on conduct covered by the NLRA. Concluding that these claims were not preempted. We must consider the jurisdictional question even where the parties are prepared to concede it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011742.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café in Beirut. Defendants are Hard Rock Café International (U.S.A.). A Canadian corporation that Plaintiff alleges is a wholly owned subsidiary controlled by HRC. Also pertinent to this appeal is Hard Rock Café Limited ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0432p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Summary judgment was ap infringement claim since TrafFix of material fact. It cannot intentionally infringed MDI's judgment on this issue is affirme determine damages for the infri motions for summary judgment competition claims. The dis erroneous on the functionality qu summary judgment to TrafFix actions pursued by MDI were th the law. The consensus on this question is that patent and trademark law protect different interests. The trade dress of MDI's WindMaster signs is protectable separately from its patents. MDI's claim of trademark and trade dress infringement is not so outlandish as to appear to be brought only to burden a competitor with litigation. This is especially true given the heretofore unsettled character of trade dress protection for product configurations in this circuit. The district court properly held that MDI's trade dress claim was not an unlawful attempt to monopolize in violation of § 2. There is no reason to have allowed discovery on the market definition issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/00-11742.man.html">INT'L CAFE V. HARD ROCK CAFE INT'L (U.S.A.) (5/31/2001, NO. 00-11742)<BR></A><BR> S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café. Lebanon.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4812-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dow Jones appeals also from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction.2 Each plaintiff is the originator of a widely known index. Dow Jones is the creator of the Dow Jones Industrial Average ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/00-11742.man.html">INT'L CAFE V. HARD ROCK CAFE INT'L (U.S.A.) (5/31/2001, NO. 00-11742)<BR></A><BR> S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café. Lebanon.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952877P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Labatt Limited and its associated companies (Labatt) are brewers and distributors of beer. Including an ice beer of its own. brewed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011742.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S.A.L. is a Lebanese corporation that operates a restaurant called Hard Rock Café in Beirut. Defendants are Hard Rock Café International (U.S.A.). A Canadian corporation that Plaintiff alleges is a wholly owned subsidiary controlled by HRC. Also pertinent to this appeal is Hard Rock Café Limited ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4MTItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-4812-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dow Jones appeals also from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction.2 Each plaintiff is the originator of a widely known index. Dow Jones is the creator of the Dow Jones Industrial Average ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1E00D3A54B62AA288256EC90056C8FF/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BFCC98B625BF90588256F3B007B5118/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion. Delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination. Which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001918.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bush </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/001368.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court's charge to the jury was insufficiently specific and LePage's's damages proof was speculative.2 The district court granted 3M's motion for 1. The plaintiffs in this action are LePage's Incorporated and LePage's Management Company. Both are appellees and cross appellants. 679 to which interest was to be added. We will affirm the district court's order granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1462.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1382.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clapp</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614726.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is the proper test for determining whether a party has prudential standing to bring a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. There are approximately 11. Appellant Phoenix is a licensed Burger King franchisee that owns and operates a Burger King franchise in Fort Lauderdale. There are approximately 30. Sitting by designation. 2 * and Burger King have employed a variety of marketing and promotional strategies to attract customers. While the games were still underway. 3 the FBI informed McDonald's that there were problems with the random distribution of its game pieces. Approximately 50 other persons either pleaded guilty or were convicted in connection with the conspiracy. McDonald's promotional games were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTc3MjBfc28ucGRm/03-7720_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.L.L.C. were on brief. Plumb & Murray were on brief. Reasoning that the Union's claim failed to satisfy the Lanham Act's jurisdictional requirements because (1) the parties were not competing for the sale of commercial services. (2) Winship's admittedly unauthorized use of the mark was in connection with services offered by the markholder rather than services offered by the infringer. Is also a plaintiff. Two affiliates of Winship (Hillhaven Corp. and First Healthcare Corp.) are codefendants. The difference between the two types of marks is not relevant here. Thus we will apply case law involving either form. Is also postdated. Urges the reader to vote against unionization and warns that union membership will bring significant financial burdens. Accompanies this listing: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067.htm">99-4067 -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR> G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. Who in turn follow suit in a cycle that replicates itself. <strong>(<u>Id.</u> at 3079 81.)</strong> There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. <strong>(IX App. at 2915:21 2916:20. X App. at 3213:16 3214:15.) </strong> Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067a.htm">99-4067A -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR> Which were not intended to be included in the published opinion. A corrected copy of the opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043874p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both of which are Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in California. Is the exclusive licensee of the FREEDOM CARD marks. 5 1 claims UTN brought against Chase.2 UTN asserted those claims in counterclaims it filed in response to Chase's declaratory judgment action. We will affirm.4 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7EF5B069AA425BC38825730D00579E8C/$file/0515170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perfect 10 alleges that numerous websites based in several countries have stolen its proprietary images. The Visa and MasterCard entities are associations of member banks that issue credit cards to consumers. FDC's stated reason for the termination is that the percentage of Perfect 10's customers who later disputed the charges attributed to them (the chargeback rate) exceeded contractual limits. Perfect 10 claims these chargeback rates were temporarily and substantially inflated because Perfect 10 was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991497.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Stroud Group expelled the Riese Group from SALT due to alleged poor construction and financial The general contractor for the Lexington Project actually was Gibraltar Companies of Tennessee. Is not material. Violations of the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2959.man.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/8/1998, NO. 97-2959)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aquatherm is a Delaware corporation that manufactures solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is the exclusive provider of electric power in approximately two thirds of the state of Florida. Its admitted sole purpose was to increase use of electrical power. Or 2) wrongly interfered with the pool heater market in order to increase its profits.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2959.man.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/8/1998, NO. 97-2959)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aquatherm is a Delaware corporation that manufactures solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is the exclusive provider of electric power in approximately two thirds of the state of Florida. Its admitted sole purpose was to increase use of electrical power. Or 2) wrongly interfered with the pool heater market in order to increase its profits.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/04-1073a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the briefs were Kenneth P. May were on the brief for amici curiae The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Ruden was on the brief for amicus curiae American Society of Travel Agents. 2 Thomas L. With him on the brief were Robert H. States that an independent computer reservation system ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/98-1570a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Linda Sher. With her on the brief were Jonathan P. When the Board learned that one of these employees was an undocumented alien. It denied him reinstatement and terminated his backpay as of the date the employer discovered he was unauthorized to work. Because the Supreme Court has held that undocumented workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Because the limited reme dy awarded here is within the Board's discretion and furthers the purposes of both labor and immigration law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971325.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Did allow the jury to decide whether Marathon and Emro's actions were unfair trade practices. I Havird is a gasoline retailer or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1072.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Was not supported by substantial evidence. The stand is comprised of a one foot steel pipe (intended to contain the tree base). The stand also includes four screws that are meant to secure the tree by fitting into apertures that are evenly spaced around the steel pipe component. DFG's stand was colored green and red. He was granted U.S. Home Depot designed a heavy duty Christmas tree stand whose design was roughly similar to DFG's stand. Home Depot had arranged through IBC to have the stand manufactured by MA in China. When Home Depot later discovered that DFG's stand was covered by a design patent. A jury trial on DFG's trade dress and unfair competition claims was held. Several other manufacturers made and sold Christmas stands that were similar to the DFG stand. Those manufacturers are not parties to this action. DFG is not appealing the district court's grant of summary judgment on the design patent claim in this appeal. 04 1072. MA and IBC also appeal the district court's unfair competition verdict.3 DFG cross appeals the district court's reduction of the jury's punitive damage award against Home Depot as well as its determination that prejudgment interest is not available for Lanham Act violations.4 Because the district court's jurisdiction was based in part on 28 U.S.C. § 1338. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2671.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hahn LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. This is a case of first impression for this circuit on several issues under the Lanham Act. Was chartered in 1990 by the Rhode Island legislature as the workers' compensation insurer of last resort in the state. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peabody & Brown were on briefs. Kohler Co. were on briefs. This is an appeal from the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Kohler Company and Robern. There were two basic claims before the trial court: that the Falling Water faucet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDFfYW1vcG4ucGRm/03-7641_amopn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2343.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellants. Jr. with whom Wright & Cherry were on brief for Peter S. Jr. with whom Wright & Cherry were on brief for appellees. appellees. The loan was secured by a first mortgage on the Chroniak residence. The loan was repaid in full by June 1988. 000 within ninety days of its execution. 3 The loan was secured by a second mortgage on the Chroniak home. Chroniak made what she believed was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0082p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eighteen full service wholesalers who are also direct distributors for defendant R.J. Are full service distributors serving grocery and convenience stores and other retail outlets in a multi state region. All of the plaintiffs are direct distributors of defendant RJR. Cigarettes are divided into four price categories or tiers. Cigarettes are manufactured by defendant RJR (Camel and Winston cigarettes). Second tier and third tier cigarettes are also produced by the major manufacturers. Their prices are substantially lower than first tier cigarettes. Fourth tier brands are produced by smaller manufacturers (including Liggett and Commonwealth) and sell at prices somewhat lower than third tier brands. Non premium brands are collectively classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1106.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Matthew R. These </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2498_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is a white. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred's extended finger on his right hand. Is a white. Two of Fartman's seven jokes are the same as two of the 10 spoken by Fred. Was not happy when Novelty. Argues that Illinois's punitive damages remedy for unfair competition is preempted by federal law. Contends that the attorneys' fees awarded by the district court should have been capped according to Tekky's contingent fee arrangement with its attorneys. It turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls. It is quite lucrative. Fred was just the beginning. Is owned by Todd Green. Green testified that he might have photographed Fred since </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1076.html">RODIME PLC V. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were Thomas R. Also of counsel on the brief were John C. With him on the brief were Gerald T. The patent is directed to the miniaturization of hard drive technology from 51/4 inches to 31/2 inches. Disk drives incorporate stainless steel components where strength is critical and aluminum components elsewhere to minimize overall weight. The disk itself will expand radially outward from the hub. The head will not find the correct track position to retrieve information. <p> To solve this problem. The thermal compensation system is built into the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011151.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 25 the reference to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011254.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were intended to grant Big Red an exclusive right to distribute Davines' hair care products within designated territories of the United States. Stat. § 75 4 (1999) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/01-10559.opn.html">BAILEY V. ALLGAS, INC. (3/8/2002, NO. 01-10559)<BR></A><BR> The district court held the expert testimony with respect to key elements of the Robinson Patman Act claim was inadmissible. The district court held Appellants' claims failed even if the testimony was admissible. (Allgas) is a distributor and seller of liquid propane gasoline operating in Alabama. With the price of propane gas varying from office to office.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/255AA369960F70BC88256FEE00575223/$file/0335375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Few subjects have generated more ink and consternation in the trademark arena in recent years than the topic of parallel imports/gray market goods. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972618P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opening briefs have been filed by four petitioners or groups of petitioners: (1) BellSouth Corp. We also have received briefs from numerous intervenors. Petitioners contend that various specific actions taken by the FCC in the Order that directly affect the application and calculation of access charges are in violation of the 1996 Act. That other decisions made the by FCC in the Order are arbitrary and capricious. The IXCs argue generally that the Order does not make the transition to competitive access rates quickly enough and is too cautious in its concern for universal service. Argue that the FCC was insufficiently cautious with respect to protecting universal service and left them exposed to inefficient competitive entry in the short term. The FCC counters that the challenged provisions of the Order are the result of a reasonable exercise of its authority to regulate rates for interstate services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Are not arbitrary and capricious. We review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act to determine whether it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0200p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/01-10559.opn.html">BAILEY V. ALLGAS, INC. (3/8/2002, NO. 01-10559)<BR></A><BR> The district court held the expert testimony with respect to key elements of the Robinson Patman Act claim was inadmissible. The district court held Appellants' claims failed even if the testimony was admissible. (Allgas) is a distributor and seller of liquid propane gasoline operating in Alabama. With the price of propane gas varying from office to office.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1389_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background No. 05 1389 General Drilling is a non union company that owns large drill rigs and drills blast holes for limestone quarries in Indiana. Drilling blast holes is the first step in the process of mining limestone from a quarry. The following people hold high ranking positions at General Drilling: William Boatman is president. David Keil is a director. Catherine Diehr is secretary. These four are known collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90A6027D7FCE4E0C8825734C0057DA4E/$file/0535627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. I A McKenzie and PeaceHealth are the only two providers of hospital care in Lane County. That the relevant market in this case is the market for primary and secondary acute care hospital services in Lane County. Primary and secondary acute care hospital services are common medical services like setting a broken bone and performing a tonsillectomy. McKenzie's sole endeavor is McKenzie Willamette Hospital. The largest of PeaceHealth's three facilities is Sacred Heart Hospital. It is necessary to appreciate the structure of the market in which this case arises. The market for hospital services and medical care is complex. Insurers are usually commercial health insurance companies that seek to buy medical services from hospitals on the best terms possible. The price agreed upon is often referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1222.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Proctor & Hoar LLP were on brief. With whom Laura Steinberg and Sullivan & Worcester LLP were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We determine that Cablevision is unlikely. We further conclude that Cablevision is unlikely to prevail on its Chapter 93A claim in this action. I. FACTS The facts are largely taken from the opinion of the district court. These are undisputed. The few points of disagreement are noted. Because key aspects of this case involve changes that have occurred over time and actions that are alleged to have been untimely. The electricity and cable television businesses were once entirely distinct enterprises. Cablevision is equally well established in Boston as a provider of cable television. Although its two franchise agreements with the City have been non exclusive. Both Boston Edison and Cablevision have needed to install conduit under the streets of Boston. Which is the division of the City's Department of Public Works responsible for construction projects involving City streets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5495555B0A4675E7882571C6007C1725/$file/0416174.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case centers on the trademarks of two well known automobile manufacturers Volkswagen and Audi.1 The question is whether the Lanham Act prevents a maker of automobile accessories from selling. The logos and marks of Volkswagen and Audi are aesthetic functional elements of the product that is. They are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. O'Loughlin</SPAN> was on brief. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/987552.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question is whether the advertising converts the theft into </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1NjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5563-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispute was sparked by 24/7's production of a cover version of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/991005U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is infringing on plaintiff's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971032.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Tommy Larsen is a designer of products of functional art. Tommy Larsen manufactures and distributes his products through Tommy Larsen AS.1 Terk is a small. The CD 25 is 1 When this lawsuit was filed. Tommy Larsen AS was a Danish entity referred to by the denomination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkyMjJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9222_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This civil antitrust action was instituted by plaintiffsappellants Apothecon. The suit was brought under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs' antitrust claims are based on the alleged anti competitive conduct of defendants appellees Barr Laboratories. Which is the primary chemical ingredient used to make warfarin sodium. This litigation is about protecting the operation of our competitive markets. Safeguard consumers by protecting 1 The code of rules that most directly influenced modern boxing was first published in 1867 under the sponsoring of John Sholto Douglas. There are 12 rules in all. Are not designed to protect competitors from one another's conduct. (Apothecon) is a wholly owned subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis. (Barr) is a competing manufacturer of generic warfarin sodium. Inc. is a Canadian corporation that. Was known as ACIC (Canada) Inc. (hereafter ACIC/Brantford). ACIC/Brantford is a supplier of various chemicals used in manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034700p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034700p5.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This is an antitrust action brought pursuant to section 1 of the Sherman Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-5088a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph O. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With her on the brief were David M. Was on the brief for amicus curiae The Government of the Republic of Iceland. With him on the brief was Gary C. L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1032a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Charles G. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was David J. Because we conclude that the Commission's order is reason able and supported by substantial evidence. Which was distributed by satellite. Which was. The purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video pro graming distributor [MVPD] from providing satellite ca ble programming.... 47 U.S.C. s 548(b). Is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1032a.html">ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION V. FCC<BR></A><BR> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012700u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ult Plus was created by Allerion. Is a derivative of the Pick Operating System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc5NDZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7946_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because (1) the challenged junior trademark is not confusingly similar to the senior mark. (2) there is no evidence of actual consumer confusion. (3) there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of defendants. Is the market leader for pre moistened bath tissue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043848p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked who owns the founder's surname. We are also asked whether defendants ­ the founder's grandson and his business ­ have engaged in trademark infringement. Because we conclude that plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Although the personal aspects of this dispute are not material to our resolution of this appeal. The history of the Doebler family businesses is critical to this matter. A case that is now before us for a second time. 4 A. Other family members were involved in the business as well. All three families were represented on Hybrids' board of directors as well. Jones and Camerer are officers. The Partnership's original functions were ultimately split between Partnership. Doebler III had ties to all three entities: he was partnered with his father in the Partnership and remains an owner of the successor LLC. He is co owner of Farmland. He was ­ but no longer is ­ a shareholder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063074np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007) OPINION PER CURIAM This is an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of Gordon Roy Parker's complaint against Google. We will affirm. I. Google is a Delaware corporation whose headquarters are in California. The USENET is a global system of online bulletin boards. Parker alleged that he is an Internet publisher. IX and XI were dismissed without prejudice after the District Court determined that these claims failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). As Parker's motion for reconsideration and motion for leave to file a second amended complaint were pending before the District Court. We first must determine whether we have appellate jurisdiction. We adhere to the rule that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01FFA502B02ECFBD88256FF900059E48/$file/0356116.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court's denial of a jury trial on California Scents's claims was error that caused California Scents to suffer prejudice. Its air fresheners are individually packaged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051815np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) OPINION OF THE COURT * This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Roth. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C.§46(d). We will affirm the judgment. Because the facts of this case are familiar to the parties. We will summarize them. Healthcare Advocates was not successful. Was formed in November 2001 and began using the mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1347.html">DOW CHEMICAL V. EXXON CORP.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/023797P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that confusion was likely. Kemp </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTM4MjBfc28ucGRm/05-3820_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-7641%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1387.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Philip M. With him on the brief were Scott J. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/924EBAD25435CFA888257344005984F4/$file/0556282.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although under certain circumstances concerns about federal question jurisdiction will preclude federal courts from hearing a case where there is no federal private right of action. The following facts formed the basis of the lawsuit: Smart is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/022462P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAML) following a jury verdict. The majority of heavy duty trucks sold by dealers are manufactured only after a retail customer has solicited and accepted bids from several dealers. This is an industry wide practice. The crux of this case is Reeder's claim that Volvo gave other dealers more favorable price concessions than Volvo granted Reeder. The remaining claims ­ the secondaryline RPA and AFPA claims ­ were tried to a jury. Was the conference's keynote speaker. The featured guest speaker of the 1998 conference was Jon Krakauer. As well as 3 mistakenly receiving faxes from Volvo intended for other dealers which listed larger concessions than Reeder was getting. Reeder came to suspect it was one of the dealers Volvo sought to eliminate. While Reeder's price per truck was $63. It would have realized a gross profit of $30. The price Reeder's customer paid for each truck was $2. Reeder would have realized $52. Reeder would have realized additional profits for its sale. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2493.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellants Pot O'Gold Money Leagues Inc. and David R. LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1045.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alvarez LLP</U> were on brief. S</U> were on brief. The suit was dismissed at the pleadings stage under Fed. Have agreed to and created a monopoly in the JUA as to all forms of low cost compulsory insurance and have boycotted and coerced at least one broker in order to maintain that monopoly. The private insurers and the JUA argue that this monopoly is a result required by the state law. That is untrue. The claims before us are a different matter: a federal antitrust suit raises different issues than issues of compliance with local statutes. It was estimated that only 25 percent to 30 percent of the vehicles in Puerto Rico were covered under some type of liability insurance.</SPAN></P> <P style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep30/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Keith M. With him on the brief were Frederick N. These errors were harmless. USI asserted for the first time that Kidde did not have standing to bring the patent infringement claim at all because the records of the United States Patent & Trademark Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-4007.htm">97-4007 -- UTAH FOAM PRODUCTS CO. V. UPJOHN CO. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR> Found that the competitor was able to offer the product to Utah Foam at a lower price than that charged by Upjohn. <p> In July. Because PAPI 135 was not of like grade and quality to PAPI 27. Thus they were irrelevant to Utah Foam's claims. We held that they were barred from doing so under <u>Donovan</u>. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u><strong> </strong>In short. The well established rule is that acceptance of remittitur of damages effectively waives the right to appeal any issue pertaining to the causes of action covered by the remittitur offer. <u>See</u> <u>Denholm</u>. 322 (5th Cir. 1985) (because punitive damages and compensatory damages based upon same cause of action are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0027n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Tembec was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I Erickson's is a wholesale distributor of hardwood flooring and related supplies. Tembec is a leading integrated forest products company principally involved in the production of wood products. Erickson's distribution of Tembec products was governed by an oral agreement between the two companies that Erickson's would be the exclusive distributor for Michigan. It received telephone calls from its customers who informed it that All Tile was claiming to be Tembec's new distributor. Tembec advised Erickson's that it would have to exit the Illinois market completely by October 24. That it would have to accept a dual distributorship arrangement with All Tile in Michigan. Inc. stated that Erickson's was going out of business and was not able to service its customers. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-3222.htm">98-3222 -- UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD. V. MIDLAND FUMIGANT INC. -- 03/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Which is used to fumigate grains. Which was granted in September of the same year. <p> On April 19. The case was settled in late October 1991. (5) not sell any further product labeled Quick Phos unless the product was manufactured by United. The cases were consolidated for trial. Fox was liable for fraud in the breach of the settlement agreement. Improper Jury Instructions <p> Midland's first assigned error is somewhat confused. Midland states </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Rogers would affirm the summary judgment against plaintiffs who have purchased indirectly from defendant. Judge Katz would find that all violations of the Act are properly analyzed under §§ 2(d) and (e) and not § 2(a). Summary judgment is therefore REVERSED on Count I as to all plaintiffs and on Count II as to those plaintiffs who purchase directly from defendant and AFFIRMED on Count II as to those plaintiffs who do not purchase directly from defendant. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Holding that eight out of ten of the plaintiff vendors did not have standing because they did not purchase cigarettes directly from Philip Morris. No plaintiffs proved that they were in competition with the other retailers. That the remaining plaintiffs who have standing are in competition with the other retailers.2 I. The Robinson Patman Act The Robinson Patman Act was passed in 1936 as an amendment to the Clayton Act.3 The Clayton Act is an antitrust law that primarily protected against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug26/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022152.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The motion is granted. The motion is denied in all other respects. This court denies Appellants' request for costs related to the preparation of its Motion to Strike and its Motion to Have Joint Appendix Corrected. 1 BERLYN INC. v. THE GAZETTE NEWSPAPERS 3 II A The plaintiffs are Berlyn. Berlyn is owned by Lynn and Bernie Kapiloff. Rossingol is a self described </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1435.html">MIDWEST INDUSTRIES V. KARAVAN TRAILERS, INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were H. Of counsel was Curtis A. Of counsel on the brief was Don Cayen. Have joined Part II A of this opinion.<p> BRYSON. Holding that they are barred by federal patent law. We hold that we will apply Federal Circuit law in determining whether patent law conflicts with other federal statutes or preempts state law causes of action. Those decisions in which we have held that regional circuit law governs in resolving such issues. As is typically true of watercraft trailers. Midwest also alleged that Karavan's conduct violated Midwest's rights under the Iowa common law of trademarks.<p> Midwest is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Would interfere with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYxNTNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6153_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants submit that the district court's ruling as to antitrust standing was correct and that dismissal was further warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are licensed physicians who practice or had practiced emergency medicine throughout the United States although they did not complete formal residency training programs in that specialty. Defendants insist that the case was properly dismissed not only for lack of antitrust standing but also for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue in the Western District of New York. We conclude that such a transfer is not in the interests of justice in this case because the plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to pursue their claims. American Board of Emergency Medicine Defendant ABEM is a Michigan not for profit corporation that was established in 6 1976 to certify physicians in emergency medicine. Staff are located in East Lansing. ABEM is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022069.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 seeking a declaration that Travelers was obligated to participate in the defense of Nissan Computer Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/023647.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Adderall is a central nervous system stimulant used in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) available only by prescription 3 and dispensed to patients in pharmacy vials labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/011377.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an issue of first impression in this court. The bases for its action are that the UPMC ad contained false statements and deceptive advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. UPMC later asserted that plaintiff 's Lanham Act claims also were proscribed by the McCarran Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA). The CommunityBlue Direct plan is also marketed solely to employers and subscribers in Western Pennsylvania. Both UPMC plans and Highmark's CommunityBlue Direct plan are network based plans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/011377a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an issue of first impression in this court. The bases for its action are that the UPMC ad contained false statements and deceptive advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. UPMC later asserted that plaintiff 's Lanham Act claims also were proscribed by the McCarran Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA). The CommunityBlue Direct plan is also marketed solely to employers and subscribers in Western Pennsylvania. Both UPMC plans and Highmark's CommunityBlue Direct plan are network based plans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/809C4A86B6C7FC2D882570F1007AA009/$file/0316976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The CPUC is also responsible for setting service levels and certain operating practices and for reviewing the Utility's capital and operating costs. The Utility is a wholly owned subsidiary of PG&E Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1816.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DaimlerChrysler timely filed this appeal and raised the following issues: 1) whether the district court erred in applying the doctrine of progressive encroachment to its dilution claim by finding that laches barred the claim even though prior sales of H1 vehicles occurred in a different market than the mainstream SUV market where the H2 is 1 (...continued) the early 1980s and was later released for consumer sales in 1992 as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2FF47A06B5F73CE888256D8A007D450D/$file/0117049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F10399F447011D388256D980059DA50/$file/0117049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Delete Footnote 4. Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7949A3E48BDCFB2F88256DA90052E74F/$file/0117049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The parties' joint motion for corrections to opinion is GRANTED. Is further amended as follows: 1. Replace the last sentence of the last paragraph beginning: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90F2DDEED394643288256BA40076BCE5/$file/0056012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Japan Telecom is a California corporation. Japan Telecom America is the United States subsidiary of Japan Telecom Company. Unclean Hands [1] </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1514.html">3D SYSTEMS V. AAROTECH<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011285.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Search </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1029.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.L.L.C.</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1266C171B8838FD8825701200018908/$file/0335669.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. These mills are part of what is often called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061661np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court determined that Everett was unlikely to succeed on the merits after finding that relevant consumers were not likely to be confused by the two names. We will affirm the order of the District Court. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case are not in significant dispute.1 Since 1985. Although most vitamins are sold over the counter. Everett claims to have spent over $2 million marketing and advertising these products. Our recitation of the facts is necessarily derived from these untested submissions. Both STROVITE and CORVITE are sold in the same fashion and to the same people: sales representatives personally visit doctors' offices and leave literature or sample boxes behind to encourage doctors to prescribe the product in the future. Wholesalers will purchase the vitamins and distribute them to pharmacies in anticipation of future prescriptions. Everett claims that it began receiving reports of confusion amongst doctors and pharmacists as to the existence of a relationship between CORVITE This was not an amicable parting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942157.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One course taught in the 1989 fall semester. 1 U.S.C. 1125(a).2 U.F. alternatively argues that a new trial is required because the great weight of the evidence is against the jury's verdict as to the copyright claims and/or because the jury's verdict was tainted by counsel's misconduct during trial. Motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are subject to de novo review. If the facts and inferences are so strong and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The grant of a directed verdict is proper. Substantial evidence is presented opposed to the motion. This evidence is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. Denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for clear abuse of At the outset. We do </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041655p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Baer seeks compensation for what he perceives was his role in the creation and development of the popular and financially successful television series. Who originally was from New Jersey. Is the creator. Chase was producing and directing a Rockford Files </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1550.html">ODDZON V. JUST TOYS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1293a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Glenn D. With him on the brief were Michele Arington. The agreement was presumptively unlawful and PolyGram failed to rebut that presumption. I. Background Here are the facts as found by the Commission in its order and opinion of July 28. Each company was free ultimately to pursue its own marketing strategy and to continue exploiting its earlier Three Tenors concert album without limitation. Which was scheduled for August 1. After first observing (correctly) that the analysis under § 5 of the FTC Act is the same in this case as it would be under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Which begins with the proposition that conduct </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2EFBED4DA930CDA8825706E004F3CC1/$file/0355957.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1444.html">ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY V. ADVANTAGE RENT-A-CAR<BR></A><BR> The owner of a famous mark can oppose the registration of a diluting mark without establishing likelihood of confusion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>This case presents the question whether such an opposition can be maintained when the applicant s mark was used in a limited geographic area before the opposer s mark became famous.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>This case also requires us to decide whether an opposition under 15 U.S.C. § . To obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.</p> <p class=MsoBlockText><o:p> . The owner of a famous mark must establish that the allegedly diluting use began after the mark ha[d] become famous. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Act provides a list of non exclusive factors that a court is to consider in determining whether a mark is famous and. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-4745.man.html">NIEMAN V. DRYCLEAN U.S.A. FRANCHISE CO. (6/21/1999, NO. 97-4745)<BR></A><BR> The district court held that the Franchise Rule applied extraterritorially and therefore Nieman was entitled to refund of his deposit. The basis of Nieman's suit was that DUSA had failed to make the disclosures required under the DUTPA and under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Franchise Rule. DUSA defended on the ground that the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule do not apply because this transaction took place in Argentina and the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule have no extraterritorial application.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1452.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants and cross appellees</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-4745.man.html">NIEMAN V. DRYCLEAN U.S.A. FRANCHISE CO. (6/21/1999, NO. 97-4745)<BR></A><BR> The district court held that the Franchise Rule applied extraterritorially and therefore Nieman was entitled to refund of his deposit. The basis of Nieman's suit was that DUSA had failed to make the disclosures required under the DUTPA and under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Franchise Rule. DUSA defended on the ground that the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule do not apply because this transaction took place in Argentina and the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule have no extraterritorial application.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1704.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hernandez Mayoral with whom Rafael Hernandez Mayoral was on brief for appellants. Cespedes and Ana Matilde Nin were on brief for Welch Food. Peirats with whom Jacabed Rodriguez Coss was on brief for Magna Trading Corp. 1 that it was calling off the corporate marriage because of irreconcilable differences. Our review of the caselaw and circumstances persuades us that only the antitrust claims properly were dismissed. We therefore reverse the summary judgment on the other causes of action. 1 These two related corporations are both in the food distribution business. Factual Background The facts underlying this dispute essentially are undisputed. Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. Welch's international marketing manager initially had suggested internally that R.W. would have to drop the Donald Duck line </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-5006.wpd.html">CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> Arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and (2) Cardtoons does not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards. Have caricatures of active major league baseball players on the front and humorous commentary about their careers on the back. The balance of the set is comprised of 20 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ5NDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4941-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is the second infringement case we have heard regarding the same trademark. It may fairly be said that in many cases a handbag is so essential that its owner would be lost without it. We emphasized that to determine whether two products are confusingly similar it is improper to conduct a side by side comparison in 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 lieu of focusing on actual market conditions and the type of confusion alleged. Vuitton's trademark Multicolore handbag design is the same as it was in the earlier case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/033977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the denial of preliminary relief in a trademark infringement action. Because the denial of the preliminary injunction was premised on legal errors. The following facts are undisputed. It advised Andrx to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA1BA54F49B327A788256B5300003E66/$file/0055009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Background Terri Welles was on the cover of Playboy in 1981 and was chosen to be the Playboy Playmate of the Year for 1981. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3452.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiff complains that the defendant is passing off his (inferior) product as the plaintiff's. Here we have the converse case of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4197D39A00F7A6A688256B1F00579D3F/$file/0015614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D40789C8144F8F088256E5A00707D86/$file/0015614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031845p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were telling architects that the partitions of Santana Products. They contended that they could not be held liable for Santana's claims because they were merely petitioning the government about a safety matter. An action which was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Arguing that the claims were barred either by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. We will affirm the District Bobrick Corporation is the parent company of Bobrick Washroom Equipment. We will refer to them collectively as Bobrick. 4 1 Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Santana's Sherman Act § 1 claim and its tortious interference with prospective contract claim.2 However. Because we conclude that the Lanham Act claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment on that claim. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken primarily from the District Court's very thorough opinion.3 A. The Toilet Partition Industry Santana and Bobrick manufacture toilet partitions.4 Toilet partitions are made of different materials. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983104P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The suspect provision is a right of first refusal. Which the JO found to have the effect or potential effect of The Honorable James M. The initial bid is based upon the midpoint between the highest purchase price reported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in a given week in Kansas for at least 2. If IBP's bid is rejected. As long as IBP's initial bid is no less than </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0123p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mistake or deception. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (emphasis added).4 The federal cause of action for dilution is found in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). We hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's dilution claims was improper. Because we hold that Kellogg's infringement claim is not in fact barred by acquiescence. We also hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's bad faith infringement claim was improper. Opining that the cartoon tiger was too whimsical and. 000 of these gas stations were owned and operated by independent distributors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/2d40789c8144f8f088256e5a00707d86/$FILE/0015614.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/4197d39a00f7a6a688256b1f00579d3f/$FILE/0015614.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackson & Donahue is a law corporation owned by Glenn K. J&D is primarily involved in the defense of insureds in workers' compensation litigation. One purpose of the Guidelines was to provide billing instructions for the firm. If the auditors assigned to perform the audit were incompetent or biased or. He conceded that the Guidelines provided that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0859p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have petitioned this court. The PFDA contends that the FTC's decision to implement a ban on casket handling fees was arbitrary and capricious and that the factual findings underlying that decision were unsupported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a whole. We will affirm the amended Funeral Rule. The FTC's decision to issue the Funeral Rule was appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Was affirmed in Harry & Bryant Co. v. The FTC adopted the amendment to the Funeral Rule which is at issue here. Inc. is a member. Sought and was granted permission to intervene. FACTS The Funeral Rule The Funeral Rule was enacted on September 24. The Funeral Rule was premised on evidence that consumers are uniquely disadvantaged when they purchase funeral services after the death of a loved one. The evidence showed that funeral service providers often sold only preselected packages of goods and services such that consumers were forced to purchase goods and services they did not want. [fn1] the purpose was to prevent funeral service providers from forcing customers to purchase goods or services they did not want.[fn2] However. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/991657P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Complications from an automobile accident have prevented Judge Gibson from reviewing this opinion prior to its being filed. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. 1 competitor of the Brookins. IMCA is the oldest auto racing sanctioning body in the United States. Specific car rules for each racing class are established by the IMCA executive committee. IMCA's executive committee then revised the rule to require that all automatic transmissions have a functioning pump. When IMCA changed its rules in response to pressure from rival transmission manufacturers who were also IMCA sponsors. The Brookins contend that IMCA's adverse rule changes were the product of concerted action by IMCA and competing transmission manufacturers that unreasonably restrained trade in modified car transmissions.3 To prevail on this Section 1 claim. Noting undisputed evidence that there are many racing classes and many competing auto racing sanctioning bodies. The court also concluded there was no evidence that excluding the Ernie Glide and Ernie Slide transmissions from modified car races has had an actual adverse effect on competition in that market. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1221.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were L.A. With him on the brief was Amanda Tessar. That the state law claims were preempted under Federal Circuit law. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact with respect to the state law claims. Is the holder of patents for a method of controlling hyperhomocysteinemia. Which is an emerging risk factor for heart and vascular disease. Three letters were sent to customers of Breckenridge in Florida: Publix Super Markets. The letters stated in relevant part: [O]ne or more small generic drug companies are offering generic equivalents to FOLTX. PamLab argues that the letters to Breckenridge's customers were sent by Metabolite alone. This argument is unavailing. Although it is true that the letters were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1019p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we concur that PNI could not have recouped the investment in predation it might have made. We will affirm. Those appearing directly on newspaper editorial pages are called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016460.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Maris was one of these distributors from 1968 1997 and was Anheuser3 Busch's exclusive distributor for the territory covering Gainesville and Ocala. The relationship between Anheuser Busch and each of its distributors is governed by a written contract referred to as the Equity Agreement. The Equity Agreement was amended to include a provision that precluded any public ownership (either through sale to a publiclyowned company or via a public offering of stock) of distributorships. It is this provision that is the subject of the instant lawsuit. Maris did not object to the amendment when the provision was added in 1969. The operative agreement between Maris and Anheuser Busch at the time this lawsuit was filed was the 1982 Equity Agreement. Paragraph 4(i) of which provided: Under no circumstances shall Wholesaler or any owner of Wholesaler have the right to transfer any ownership interest in the business of Wholesaler if such transfer would result in Wholesaler being owned in 4 whole or in part. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR> Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1010.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Burns & Levinson were on brief. Kindregan and Hale & Dorr were on brief. Is whether when one business engages in unfair and deceptive practices towards another and the harm consists of a delay in payments owed (and the usual accompanying expenses). That is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1826p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INTRODUCTION: The revolutionary changes in the health care field over the past decade have spawned many novel market arrangements. Perhaps the most significant development is the ascendency of managed care driven health maintenance organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR> Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002414.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the owner of the well known Harrods of London department store. The defendants are 60 Internet domain names ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6342.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. OSSAA is Oklahoma's state organized school activities association. Christian Heritage is a private religious school in Del City. Since it is not an OSSAA member. Twelve of its members are nonpublic <hr> schools (ten of which are private schools and two are Indian schools). Eight are located in suburban areas. While two are in rural areas. Any secondary school desiring to become a member of the Association is to file with the Executive Secretary a resolution. OSSAA members are provided with. Are subject to. The ballot simply describes the geographic area where students are immediately eligible for athletics in the nonpublic applicant school by reason of residence.(1) (1) Whenever a nonpublic school applies for membership. A student may attend a school district in which a student is not a resident. If a student transfers to a school district in which he is not a resident. Unless the transfer is due to a bona fide change of residence by his parents. At 72. <hr> OSSAA's Rule 8 lists the geographic areas for nonpublic schools that are admitted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0021p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision was made early on not to structure the business as a franchise because franchising would require too much on site monitoring of individual franchisees' operations. Tumblebus Inc. does not have a complete list of all persons who have purchased retrofitted buses. Informed Pate that two other persons were already operating in Lexington. Where Tumblebus Inc. was based. That she was confident in her customers' loyalty to Tumblebus Inc.1 In January 2002. Reminding Pate that she was not supposed to be operating in that area. Pate explained that she was having difficulty in obtaining customers in Elizabethtown and the surrounding areas. So the five [written agreements with geographic restrictions that were produced during discovery] were the five [she] had in writing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992318.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cartoon was syndicated and the Skippy character was marketed in cartoon books. This mark was transferred to appellant Skippy. Appellant Joan Crosby Tibbetts is Percy Crosby's daughter and the current president of Skippy. CPC International and its predecessors have sold peanut butter in the United States under the trademark SKIPPY since 1933. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6049.htm">01-6049 -- SALLY BEAUTY CO. INC. V. BEAUTYCO INC. -- 09/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Marianna is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A31B9ADAD5C7C56882572EC000096D9/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3577. Neither party in that case raised the question of whether state law counts as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1432.html">SEAL-FLEX, INC. V. ATHLETIC TRACK AND COURT CONSTRUCTION<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were William J. Of counsel was Richard W. Inc. is the assignee of U.S. Mats constructed according to the claimed method are often used as running tracks. First applying a liquid latex binder to the previously spread rubber layer in sufficient quantity to coat substantially all rubber particles of said layer then air drying said applied mixture until substantially no liquid is visible. Air drying the binder followed by the spreading of a uniform layer of rubber over the preceding layers until the approximate desired thickness for the mat is achieved. <p> <p> (emphasis added).<p> <p> According to this method. Each of its shareholders is licensed to practice this patented process. <p> AT&. The counterclaim sought a declaratory judgment that the patents were invalid. CC maintained that the Eaton Rapids method was not its customary track construction method. CC uses a material to perform the identical function and that the material used for performing that function was the same as or equivalent to the corresponding materials disclosed in the specification. <p> At the conclusion of the liability trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2211.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Uhrbach were on brief for appellant. Hagopian and Visconti & Petrocelli Ltd. were on brief for appellee. CBS provided television stations with a program called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>   </span>With him on the brief were <u>John F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Andra Barmash Greene</u>. Communications Industry Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Matthew Schruers</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso bidi font s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-4050.htm">97-4050 -- NOVELL INC. V. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO. -- 04/14/1998<BR></A><BR> Michael Ross is the sole proprietor of Enhancement Software. StampIt was designed to work as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3618_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Harley is universally recognized as a manufacturer of high quality motorcycles. The Federal Patent and Trademark Office has issued Harley the registered trademarks </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/95-8751.opa.html">SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A97A6EECB2FE5F588256FBA0006D994/$file/0315890.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2745_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The letter stated in pertinent part: YOU ARE EITHER HONEST OR DISHONEST YOU CANNOT BE BOTH Your creditor believed you to be honest when credit was extended. Is a debt collection agency. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose. Or misleading representation[s] or means </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1300.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Joseph Angland. Of counsel on the brief was Elliot M. With him on the brief were Christopher S. Of counsel on the brief were Roy E. Of counsel on the brief were John W. With him on the brief were Morgan Chu and Jason D. Of counsel on the brief was Gordon A. With him on the brief were Steven M. There is no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E61E2925B9DC6E788256FF0007309AE/$file/0315890.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 2596. When a medical examination is conducted at the proper time and in the proper manner. Or that an employer is foreclosed from refusing to hire an applicant who does. The panel judges have voted to deny appellee's petition for panel rehearing. Judges Graber and Fisher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be considered. Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ5MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4909-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) rejected a demand for trial by jury on the ground that all remaining claims were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/95-8751.opa.html">SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-5156a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tuttle was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Butler were on the joint brief. Perlman was on the brief for appellee Mormac Marine Transport. The agency's interpretation was unobjec tionable. I. Because building ships and manning them in the United States was and remains more expensive than in other coun tries. Because vessels built with the aid of the CDS program would have an unfair advantage if allowed to compete directly with the unsubsidized Jones Act ships in domestic trade. That if the vessel is operated in the domestic trade on any of the above enumerated services. He will pay annually to the Secretary of Transportation that proportion of one twenty fifth of the construction differential subsidy paid for such vessel as the gross revenue derived from the domestic trade bears to the stops on bona fide foreign voyages. Which is established by statute as twenty years for tankers and twenty five years for vessels carrying dry goods. Whenever the Secretary may determine that such transfer is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958751.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. Sun Life Insurance Company of America The ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/983732P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to a jury for ten weeks. A verdict was returned in favor of the boat builders for $44. Post trial motions were filed by both sides. Judgment was eventually entered for the boat builders in the amount of $133. They are located in various states. An additional party plaintiff is an Illinois buying cooperative composed of recreational boat manufacturers. 32 1 Brunswick's motion for judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim. Neither side contests the finding of the jury that the relevant market is the market for inboard and stern drive marine engines. Since the early 1980s there have been a number of manufacturers in the market. Stern drive engines are used primarily in recreational power boats known as runabouts. Which are typical water skiing boats. Which are larger and more expensive boats and usually have cabins. The market share requirements were reduced so that the maximum 3% discount could be earned by buying 70% from Brunswick. Another feature was added to the program in 1989 to offer long term discounts of an additional 1 or 2% to anyone who signed a market share agreement for two to three years.3 Boat builders also could receive a volume discount of up to 5% based on the quantity of engines purchased. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031152.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The facts giving rise to Jordan Oil's claim against Boardman are set forth in our opinion in Jordan Oil's first appeal of this case. Then it was not necessary for the court to consider whether section 325(A) violated the state constitution's substantive due process clause. Were the district court correct in its interpretation of section 325(A). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2FA43604F5CB31A8825723A005ACAC0/$file/0315955.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Judge CLIFTON joins as to Part II A and II B: The question before us is whether a provision to submit to arbitration in a written franchise agreement is valid and enforceable. A three judge panel of our court held that the unconscionability of an arbitration provision contained in the franchise agreement is a question for the arbitrator to decide. It was error to hold that consideration of the unconscionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator. Is unconscionable must be referred to the arbitrator. When the crux of the complaint is not the invalidity of the contract as a whole. Then the federal courts must decide whether the arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable under 9 U.S.C. § 2 of the FAA.1 The federal courts cannot shirk their statutory obligation to do so simply because controlling substantive state law requires the court to consider. No cause of action in the complaint alleges that the franchise agreement is invalid because it is a contract of adhesion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1532.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Paul R.Q. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph C. With him on the brief was Meredith B. With him on the brief was Bradley S. With him on the brief was Amy E.L. With him on the brief were Jeffrey L. Of counsel on the brief was Jerome C. With him on the brief were Lorane F. With her on the brief was Jim Hood. Which is directed toward insertion of a synthetic gene consisting of a 35S cauliflower mosaic virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/011299mo.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a jury verdict finding in part that the United Service Automobile Association Casualty Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E850B862A18465C788256EA600528742/$file/0256509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other to dismiss the complaint against the remaining defendants because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Sherman Antitrust Act's per se prohibition against price fixing is applicable to the economic arrangements between the defendants. Shell Oil Co. were once fierce competitors in the national oil and gasoline markets. Both Shell and Texaco sensed intensified competition in the downstream operations of their industry they similarly believed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/98-1570b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Ryan D. With her on the brief were Leonard R. With him on the brief were Jonathan P. When the Board learned that one discriminatee was an undocumented alien. Also to avoid violations of * Senior Judge Silberman was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. A compliance hearing was held before another ALJ. Not before Castro had stated that he was a Mexican national and that the birth certificate he had used to gain employment at Hoffman was borrowed from a friend. Arguing primarily that awards of backpay to undocumented discriminatees are barred by Sure Tan. That this case is controlled by a single sentence from Sure Tan: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E602EB5C9A0D3B288256D91005B3715/$file/0016691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Fisher *Judge Tallman was drawn to replace Judge Henry Politz. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1570b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him </P> <P>on the briefs was Ryan D. With her on the brief were </P> <P>Leonard R. With him on the brief were Jonathan P. </P> <P>Hiatt and Laurence Gold.</P> <P> . When the Board </P> <P>learned that one discriminatee was an undocumented alien. </P> <P> </P> <P> * Senior Judge Silberman was in regular active service at the </P> <P>time of oral argument. A compliance hearing was held before another ALJ. </P> <P>Castro appeared at the hearing. Not before Castro had </P> <P>stated that he was a Mexican national and that the birth </P> <P>certificate he had used to gain employment at Hoffman was </P> <P>borrowed from a friend. Arguing primarily that awards of backpay to </P> <P>undocumented discriminatees are barred by Sure Tan. That this case is controlled by a single </P> <P>sentence from Sure Tan: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1565.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1486a.html">MI VALLEY GAS CO V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/042604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other defendants then settled with Goss and are no longer parties to this lawsuit. Goss's claims against TKS were tried to a jury. (5) sufficient evidence does not support the jury's verdict that TKS dumped products onto the United States printing press market that were comparable to the products TKS sold in Japan. Because Goss's claims against TKS were pending at the time Congress repealed the 1916 Act. A typical large printing press system is over 100 feet long. Once a large printing press is installed. It oftentimes is referred to as an installed base. Is so large and expensive. This is often referred to as the installed base advantage. Price is the primary factor. The United States market for large printing press equipment is rather small. Because the market is so compact. Goss was the only domestic manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States. Goss noticed TKS was a major foreign competitor in the United States market. All of these sales were dumped. They were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1829E12C574B8E4888256BCD007EEF78/$file/0155154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Matthew Clark Bures was on the brief. The claims also have played a central role in Nutrition Now's marketing campaign. Rogovin vigorously complained to Rifkin that Nutrition Now's claims regarding PB8 were false and misleading. Jarrow alleged that Nutrition Now's claims were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-16189.opn.html">CUMULUS MEDIA, INC. V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-16189)<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether Clear Channel has infringed the rights of Cumulus Media. We can find no error in the entry of the preliminary injunction and accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1218.html">ENVIRON PRODUCTS, INC. V. FURON COMPANY<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Michael K. With him on the brief was <U>Jay . Of counsel was <U>Joseph D. Ruling that Michael Webb is the original inventor of the subject matter of United States Patent No. 5. The judgment is affirmed. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The Rendezvous is a historical reenactment held each Labor Day weekend at the Fort Bridger Historical Site in Wyoming in which participants reenact an annual rendezvous held by local fur traders from 1825 to 1840. 000 visitors and is the largest of its kind in the region. Some of the members of the FBRA's fourteen person Board of Directors are also traders. As fewer than half of the traders are members of the FBRA. <hr> Among other things. Priority is given to traders who participated in the previous year's Rendezvous. He generally will receive the same space he occupied the year before. Or by traders who were at the previous Rendezvous but filed their applications after the deadline. Are accepted on a first come. The Gregorys were long time and large volume Rendezvous traders who offered a wide selection of goods at low prices as compared to most other traders including traders who were members and directors of the FBRA. Their trading post sales of goods were governed by a contract with the State of Wyoming rather than by the FBRA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Schering Plough settlements unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(c). The Upsher Settlement Schering Plough ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-16189.opn.html">CUMULUS MEDIA, INC. V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-16189)<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether Clear Channel has infringed the rights of Cumulus Media. We can find no error in the entry of the preliminary injunction and accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001175.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Seeking a declaration that Carl Johnson's insurance policy with Westchester was void WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. Cotton Mill and its tenants were left without heat. The temporary service was insufficient to operate the entire facility. Which is the approximate amount it would have cost Bowman to restore permanent electrical service to Cotton Mill. Westchester argued that the Policy was void because Johnson made material misrepresentations in his Proof of Loss when he stated. Johnson argued that the Policy was not restricted to direct physical loss. Holding that it is unnecessary for a plaintiff bringing an unfair trade practices claim under § 58 63 15(11)(f) to show that the defendant engaged in the allegedly unfair practices with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. The question thus presented is whether Johnson waived the argument that Westchester violated § 58 63 15(11) by not raising it until his appellate reply brief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962542.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are turkey growers. At which the Philsons were awarded $15. Were subsidiaries of Goldsboro Milling Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/072088p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge This is a classic case of jumping the gun. All parties admit that the employee is violating the covenant. The question is whether it is unreasonable. Because reasonableness is a fact intensive inquiry. We hold that it should not have been determined on the pleadings. After resolving that we have jurisdiction over the interlocutory dismissal of claims related to the covenant because it effectively denied a request for a preliminary injunction. One of which is fire protection. Or (2) in any area in which Victaulic products are sold on behalf of nine named competitors (of which Tyco is one). I will not. I will not. Within any geographic region in which Victaulic products are sold (which includes all of the continental United States. Tieman and Tyco filed a declaratory judgment action against Victaulic in December 2006 in the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaration that the covenant not to compete was invalid under Pennsylvania law. The two cases were consolidated. Two motions were pending: (1) Victaulic's request for a preliminary injunction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2009_015A.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was a van the interior of which could be converted by the owner in about an hour from a mobile office to a camper. Vans of this sort are called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971399.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the cite to the law review article is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992255.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 the references to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71928588C713BB218825729E0076C115/$file/0456809.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Was on the brief. The training agreement specifies that CRST will pay for the first two phases of a student's training. WERNER ENTERPRISES 3189 after this one (1) year period shall be at will and may be terminated at any time by either CRST or Employee. . . . 4. If Employee is terminated without Due Cause. Employee is forgiven for the amount due under paragraph 6. Or (2) Employee's employment is terminated for Due Cause. 600.00 will be immediately due and payable by Employee to CRST. ... 6. Informing Werner that both Spencer and Chatman were employed pursuant to contracts with noncompetition clauses that would last another 300 days. CRST learned that Spencer and Chatman had accepted truck driver positions with Werner.2 CRST alleged that Werner's hiring of Spencer and Chatman were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0363n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Abandonment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5294A335AAD5EE2A88257203007AF2B1/$file/0435843.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cheese people explain their quarter century delay in taking action against Tillamook Country Smoker by contending that they are victims of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5482E2958BE178F688256D350051939F/$file/0156582.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dawson were on the briefs. Kravitz was on the briefs. Rice owns the copyright to a home video entitled The Mystery Magician that was created in 1986 and reveals RICE v. 000 copies of The Mystery Magician were sold worldwide. The premise behind Fox's programming idea was revealing the secrets behind famous magic illusions. Video copies of the Specials were sold in connection with the broadcasts. Viewers were invited to place their telephone orders by calling the toll free number that appeared on the televison screen. Rice believed that the inspiration behind Fox's series was The Mystery Magician. 2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-7098.htm">97-7098 -- SOUTHERN DISPOSAL INC. V. TEXAS WASTE MANAGEMENT -- 12/02/1998<BR></A><BR> The City notified Southern Disposal it was no longer authorized to collect trash within the city limits after March 31. Southern Disposal filed suit. <p> The district court first addressed the federal questions involved to determine if federal jurisdiction was appropriate. Because no property right was implicated and both parties were granted fair and equal opportunity to participate in the competitive bidding process. <p> <u><strong></u></strong> Appellant argues on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously ruled that Southern Disposal's complaint fails to state any antitrust violation pertaining to the solid waste disposal market for Choctaw County. (2) the actions of the Defendants are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny because the Oklahoma legislature is constitutionally prohibited from articulating a state policy to permit displacement of all competition in the solid waste management business. The standard of review is <em>de novo</em>. <em> See Chemical Weapons Working Group. We will uphold a dismissal on this basis </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031316.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court concluded that certain of Bryan's claims arose under federal law and were subject to dismissal under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2066.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee. Toll free </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210171.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR> We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-3119.man.html">CNA FIN. CORP. V. BROWN (12/22/1998, NO. 96-3119)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Appellant CNA Financial Corporation (CNAF) is the parent holding corporation of Continental Casualty Company (Continental). The Valley Forge Life Insurance Company are collectively known in advertising as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI5MDctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2907-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: When faced with the claim that two products are confusingly similar. A person's natural reaction is to place the two products side by side. To ascertain how comparable the two goods are. This process of simultaneous observation is. The ultimate conclusion as to whether a substantial number of consumers are likely to be confused by the similarities must be reached with a focus on actual market conditions and the type of confusion alleged. Where products in the relevant market are not typically displayed in the same locations. Centering on whether they are likely to be distinguished when viewed simultaneously is incorrect. Will result in a faulty likelihood of confusion analysis. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Appellant Louis Vuitton Malletier ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1179.html">GLOBETROTTER SOFTWARE, INC., ET AL. V. ELAN COMPUTER GROUP, INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant and third party defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1377.html">SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS<BR></A><BR> With them on the brief was <U>David S. Of counsel was <U>Michael T. With him on the brief was <U>Gary J. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Richard L. Of counsel was <U>Basil Carl Culyba</U>. Because we are not persuaded that the district court either abused its discretion in holding the 636 patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct or improperly dismissed Samsung s federal and New Jersey RICO counterclaims. SEL is a Japanese company specializing in the research and development of semiconductor technology. Is the named inventor or co inventor on most of SEL s patents. The channel region is ". The application for the 636 patent was filed on June 7. Was fifteen pages long. The IDS was accompanied by a Form PTO 1449 listing ninety references that it wished to make of record. By submitting a concise explanation and a one page partial translation of the Canon reference that were accurate but misleadingly incomplete. SEL had intentionally misled the examiner into believing that the Tsai article was not material. <U>See</U> <U>id.</U> at 486. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021121.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There was no specific mention of the individual clip art images. The Web Clip Empire Products are distributed through Xoom's website and also through third parties who market the products to end users. Some of the images used in the Web Clip Empire Products were designed by commissioned artists. While other images were licensed to Xoom by third parties. Imageline noted on its registration form that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011676.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although the subsidiary was neither incorporated in West Virginia nor licensed as a general contractor in North Carolina when RCDI Construction Management and Dr. It was a licensed general contractor in North Carolina at the time of the assignment and throughout the time that it acted as general contractor pursuant to the assignment. When the hotel was near completion. Spaceplan was neither a party to this litigation nor named as a party released from all claims in the settlement agreement. The tortious interference and unfair competition claims were premised on Spaceplan's recommendation to Dr. The negligence claim was based on allegations that Spaceplan failed to take steps to remedy the water damage for several months. Reasoning that there was no valid contract because RCDI Construction Management was not a licensed contractor when it entered the contract. This defect was not cured by the licensing of its subsidiary and assignee. Noting that recovery on a tortious interference claim effectively would allow unlicensed contractors to circumvent the rule prohibiting them from enforcing contracts that are both illegal and invalid as against public policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/96-3119.man.html">CNA FIN. CORP. V. BROWN (12/22/1998, NO. 96-3119)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Appellant CNA Financial Corporation (CNAF) is the parent holding corporation of Continental Casualty Company (Continental). The Valley Forge Life Insurance Company are collectively known in advertising as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/952640P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ekco was negotiating with K Mart over a kitchen tool and gadget planogram (a pegboard display of a variety of products) to be located in the housewares department of K Mart stores. Ekco explored the were combined and packaged. place until the fall of 1992. planogram. possibility of other manufacturers providing the beverage top for its One of these companies. Judgment as a matter of law may be granted when 1268 69 (8th Cir. 1994). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0837p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A default judgment will be vacated. The case will be transferred to the district where the defendant resides and carries on his business. May have waived an objection to venue by failing to have an attorney appear on its behalf. We will nevertheless vacate the judgment against the company as well so that the entire action may be transferred to the same district. Inc. is a nationwide franchisor incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania and maintains its principal place of business in that state. Defendant Leonardo Martino is a Michigan resident and the sole stockholder of co defendant Trans One II. Venue and jurisdiction in Montgomery County were established by a forum selection clause in the Cottman agreement. Judgment was entered against defendants by default. The Cottman Martino agreement was no longer in effect. The Martino litigation was consolidated with several other suits previously brought by Cottman in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against a number of its former Michigan franchisees. Held that venue was proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1827p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court faced the question whether the use of violence in a labor strike to obtain higher wages and other benefits was extortion within the meaning of the Hobbs Act. The Court reviewed the wording of the Act and its legislative history and determined that such conduct was not extortion. Which is not defined in the Act. Any violence or force to obtain property is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011289.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/042502P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Frosty Treats contends that because the ice cream truck in those games bears a clown graphic that it alleges is similar to the one on its ice cream trucks. Is labeled with its brand identifier. Frosty Treats asserts that the district court erred by finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and holding as a matter of law that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1531.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. (e) said sill of the spigot having a portion which is downwardly offset with respect to remaining areas of the sill. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The facts underlying this case are undisputed and uncomplicated. Mario Andretti was a successful and well known race car driver before he retired from automobile racing. Andretti is now a corporate spokesman for companies that contract with Andretti for the exclusive right to utilize his name. Borla's attorney attached his own declaration to the notice of removal stating that Andretti's pre suit demands to Borla were about $200. His claims were moot due to Borla's offer to enter a permanent injunction. The Judgment was in favor of Andretti and M.A. 500. The permanent injunction was worded identically to the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that Andretti was a prevailing party and therefore that Borla was not entitled to costs or attorney fees as provided in Rule 54(d) and the Lanham Act. The court also determined that Borla was not entitled to attorney fees under the Copyright Act because. Even though Borla had argued that several of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1175.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for Appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30473.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. We consider whether defendant appellant's appeal is frivolous and deserving of sanctions pursuant to FED. Were members of the 1960's pop group. Plaintiffs learned Jones was exploiting the song in foreign territories when the song appeared in the movie. These statements are in direct contradiction to statements made by Jones in earlier sworn statements in previous litigation over the authorship of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/023043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Twins and Midwest Sports Channel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. (2) adopting the jury's advisory determination that the '215 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Which is directed to a receiver front end for a cellular base station. At controversy are claim limitations pertaining to a set of cryogenically cooled components RF filters made from high temperature superconducting material. Wherein in a first mode when the one or more sensors measure acceptable operational parameters the bypass circuit is unswitched such that RF signals pass through the plurality of filters and amplifiers in the cryogenic cooler and not through the bypass circuit and in a second mode when the one or more sensors measure at least one unacceptable operational parameter the bypass circuit is switched and RF signals pass through the bypass circuit and not through the plurality of filters and amplifiers in the cryogenic cooler. '215 patent. The case was tried to a jury. The asserted claims were found to be invalid for obviousness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991010.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alleging that the appellees have engaged in a variety of activities constituting unfair trade practices. Appellant Whitfield alleges that the district court committed reversible error when it granted summary judgment to all appellees on the basis of its ruling that Whitfield's evidence of damages was too speculative to support a jury verdict. Appellant also appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court to all appellees on the claim for civil conspiracy on the basis of its ruling that Whitfield was required to demonstrate that the appellees conspired for the purposes of injuring Whitfield in particular and on Whitfield's cause of action seeking injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Candace Pratt (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1216.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Herbert H. Of counsel on the brief were Conrad J. This is a patent infringement case. A jury trial subsequently was held to determine damages. American Seating now appeals all aspects of the district court's summary judgment decision that were unfavorable to it. Which are seats that have the ability to fold away in order to create more interior space in a vehicle. They are particularly useful for accommodating passengers with wheelchairs. May be used whenever more interior space is needed. The figures shown below are representative of the stowable seat claimed in the '389 patent. 1248 3 raising the seatbase to its vertically stowed position where it is locked in place. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR> We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45814D6321BF8DA888256B5D005D4500/$file/0056559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034097p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendant and remand with directions to grant the Government's request for injunctive relief. Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in York Pennsylvania. The relevant market is the sale of prefabricated artificial teeth in the United States. Artificial tooth manufacturing is marked by a low or no growth potential. Is about 15 times larger than its next closest competitor. The other significant manufacturers and their market shares are: 4 Ivoclar Vivadent. There are hundreds of dealers who compete on the basis of price and service among themselves. The relationship is essentially terminable at will. Dealer Criterion 6 was enforced against dealers with the exception of those who had carried competing products before 1993 and were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/04-1414a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Cynthia S. With him on the briefs was Wallace F. With him on the briefs were Noel H. With them on the brief was Robert H. With him on the brief were Ilia Levitine and Stephen G. Roby were on the brief for intervenors Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor Duke Energy Shared Services. Is a nonprofit corporation that controls the transmission of electricity over a grid spanning 15 Midwestern states. Its original tariff was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and went into effect in 2002. Who are electricity sellers in MISO's markets subject to the new tariff's rules and liabilities. Who are electricity buyers under contracts predating the establishment of MISO. Any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0563n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is from the granting of injunctive The Honorable James L. I. Curtis 1000 sells custom printed products through sales representatives who are assigned to specific geographic territories. Are not limited to a geographic area. ASB is not in the manufacturing business. Martin and Bean were both hired by Curtis 1000 in 1984 as sales representatives and were assigned different sales territories in Central Tennessee. Martin and Bean were both responsible for building their own client bases. Bean's agreement was executed on June 22. Specified that it was governed by the laws of Delaware. [T]he Sales Representative will acquire by reason of his employment valuable information concerning the Company's accounts. Any and all such information other than known generally by persons not affiliated or formerly affiliated with the Company is to be treated by the Sales Representative as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011296.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We believe that the novel question of state law at issue in this case is one that would be best resolved by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Approximately twenty eight of those were located in South Carolina. INC. 3 Two of Jordan Oil's Hot Spot convenience stores were located in Spartanburg County. Both of these Hot Spot convenience stores were located within five miles of Smile Gas convenience stores operated by Boardman. This cycle of price adjustments continued downward until both parties were selling gas below cost. 000 on the sale of regular gasoline during the period that both parties were selling below cost. The district court concluded that Boardman's conduct was not covered by the UTPA because the UTPA did not apply to independent gasoline retailers and furthermore. Even if Boardman's conduct were covered under the UTPA. Boardman was not in violation because the statute allows a retailer to sell below cost to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5487-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Some have said. Is an engine of technological development. The telephonic system at dispute in this appeal is an example of that phenomenon it was designed and implemented to ensure that consumers paid charges for accessing pornography and other adult entertainment. The system identified the user of an online adult entertainment service by the telephone line used to access that service and then billed the telephone line subscriber 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 for the cost of that service as if it was a charge for an international phone call to Madagascar. It had a problem as well: It was possible for someone to access an adult entertainment service over a telephone line without authorization from the telephone line subscriber who understood herself contractually bound to pay all telephone charges. If the computer was connected by modem to a telephone line. Charges for accessing the adult entertainment appeared on bills sent to the consumers whose telephone lines were used. This billing system did not have a mechanism to ensure that a telephone line subscriber authorized the computer user to access a given adult entertainment service. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-1396a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard S. With him on the brief were Ronald E. With him on the brief were Richard G. LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2341.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse and remand the case for action consistent with this opinion.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1771.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is bargainbeanies.com. Ty's suit is based on the federal antidilution statute. That in any event the injunction (which has remained in effect during the appeal) is overbroad. The fundamental purpose of a trademark is to reduce consumer search costs by providing a concise and unequivocal identifier of the particular source of particular goods. The consumer who knows at a glance whose brand he is being asked to buy knows whom to hold responsible if the brand disappoints and whose product to buy in the future if the brand pleases. The traditional and still central concern of trademark law is to provide remedies against this practice. Confusion is not a factor here. Perryman is not a competing producer of beanbag stuffed animals. The reason is that state and now federal law also provides a remedy against the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F552D4DFDE50F88B8825732A007F4367/$file/0555627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court's entry of summary judgment in Jada's favor as to those claims is reversed. The district court's entry of summary judgment as to those claims in favor of Jada is also reversed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jada Toys is a California corporation that specializes in the distribution and sale of miniature diecast toy cars. These vehicles are scale model replicas of actual vehicles. The trademark was issued by and registered with the U.S. Mattel is also a toy company. Among its many lines of toys is its familiar HOT WHEELS miniature vehicle brand. Were not related to its HOT RIGZ mark. Among the counterclaims were allegations that Jada's HOT RIGZ mark infringed on Mattel's HOT WHEELS mark.1 Mattel also counterclaimed for copyright infringement and dilution. STANDARD OF REVIEW The review of a grant of summary judgment as to an infringement claim is de novo. . . . there are any genuine issues of material fact. Summary judgment is generally disfavored in the trademark arena. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E64D5E6A0401273788256C39005336AA/$file/0055293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: The caption is changed to reflect the addition of Case No. 00 55599. This case number was inadvertently omitted from the opinion as filed. The question in this case is whether Thane has violated the federal trademark laws by its choice of name for its product. Trek products are sold through more than 1. Trek is the country's most popular and most respected bicycle brand. Trek was granted a United States trademark for the use of TREK on bicycles and bicycle frames. The most prominent athlete Trek sponsors is cancer survivor Lance Armstrong. Pictures of Armstrong with a TREK bicycle have appeared in The New York Times and on Wheaties boxes. Thane maintains that this venture was a failure. This stationary trainer would not have pedals. Because it is meant to be used while standing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-1342a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Gary C. With him on the brief were James Michael Kelly. At a time when those agents were buying toma toes from JSG on behalf of their respective employers. Alleging that the Judicial Officer was proceeding from an incorrect legal premise. A later Congress summarized the purpose of PACA as fol lows: [PACA] is admittedly and intentionally a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/192E3ECD8134788788256C2C00579F18/$file/0055293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question in this case is whether Thane has violated the federal trademark laws by its choice of name for its product. Trek products are sold through more than 1. Trek is the country's most popular and most respected bicycle brand. Trek was granted a United States trademark for the use of TREK on bicycles and bicycle frames. The most prominent athlete Trek sponsors is cancer survivor Lance Armstrong. Pictures of Armstrong with a TREK bicycle have appeared in The New York Times and on Wheaties boxes. Thane maintains that this venture was a failure. This stationary trainer would not have pedals. Because it is meant to be used while standing. 13384 THANE INT'L v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/034108np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is an expedited interlocutory appeal by Appellants T.A. We will affirm. I. Because the facts are known to the parties. Our factual summary is brief. All of which have similar names. Is a seed growing business. DPH is a business that markets seeds grown by T.A. The Doebler's trade name has been in use for 30 years and is considered by the public to be synonymous with DPH. A preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 574 (3d Cir. 1991). 3 Appellants TAS and Doebler III argue on appeal that the preliminary injunction was in error because it: (1) imposed restrictions on competition despite the lack of a non compete agreement. (2) was overbroad. (4) mistakenly concluded DPH's trade secrets were misappropriated. Appellants' claims are meritless and require little discussion. The preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion nor an error of law. Appellants are incorrect that the District Court erred in its assessment of harms to the parties. Customer confusion to the detriment of DPH is inevitable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1067.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Are Puerto Rico corporations. Complete diversity of citizenship between the parties was thus destroyed. Although this fact was not called to the district court's attention at the time. Arguing 2 that summary judgment was improper and that the district court erred in granting the permanent injunction. Mita is a California corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. An amendment Codefendants John Doe and Richard Roe are fictitious names used to refer to defendants whose names are unknown at present. Said defendants are the natural persons and/or corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. John Doe and Richard Roe are citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and are also liable to plaintiff pursuant to the allegations mentioned hereinafter. (emphasis added). 4 filed on March 9. Inc. are. Said defendants are the corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CB92EF5AD825DA188256CCA0011916F/$file/0215416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AT&T appeals on the ground that the application of California's consumer protection laws is preempted by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 1934 Act was intended to address the unique problems inherent in a monopolistic environment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2313.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/00A79345E9F2318188256EED0049B206/$file/0216472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the challenged agreement does not have a direct. Tomatoes had a very short shelf life if they were picked from 11012 UNITED STATES v. Consumers are unable to access vineripened tomatoes for much of the year. Most United States consumers are relegated to eating foreign tomatoes that are picked before they are ripe. So they will still be fresh after shipping. Tomatoes picked in this fashion have a poor flavor compared to vine ripened tomatoes. The contract provided that LSL would have the exclusive rights to the North American market. Which is the UNITED STATES v. Hazera may engage in such activities only if all of the following conditions are met: (A) the subject tomatoes do not have or involve long shelf life qualities which are included in LSL's proprietary rights. The Restrictive Clause was amended to allow Hazera to sell other seeds (e.g. The government alleged that the Restrictive Clause is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310226.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Morris is a media company that publishes print and electronic newspapers. PGA is the sponsor of a series of professional golf tournaments throughout North America known as the PGA Tour. RTSS is an elaborate electronic relay scoring system that relies on state of the art computer technology and equipment as well as dozens of trained workers and volunteers. 2 RTSS works as follows. The scores are then collected by other volunteers. The scores of all participating golfers are then processed at the remote production truck and transmitted to PGA's website. Which are scores that are transmitted electronically nearly contemporaneously to their actual occurrence on the golf course. The compiled scores are also transmitted to an on site media center where members of the media are able to access the scores. The same information is also transmitted to various electronic leaderboards located throughout the golf course. The 3 only source of compiled golf scores for all tournament players is RTSS. The only physical location at which to obtain compiled golf scores is the media center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992330.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges. *Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 Affirmed in part. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Metric claims that the Banks allowed it to continue working when they knew the Project was in jeopardy. I. In May 1995 Metric and Carolina Energy Limited Partnership (CELP) entered into an $86 million Turnkey Design and Construction Agreement (Construction Agreement) under which Metric was to build the Project for CELP at two sites in North Carolina.* The Construction Agreement provided for payment to Metric under the following procedures. Including a statement that the work was performed in accordance with the Construction Agreement. Lien waivers from Metric and its subcontractors were also required to insure the effective release of all mechanic and materialmen's liens for the month for which payment was due. *CELP is not a party in this case. 4 gave the Bank of Tokyo responsibility for disbursing the funds for Project construction to CELP. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief for Donald Thomas Scholz. Given and Goldstein & Phillips were on brief for Paul F. Dispute whether royalties from record albums have been accounted for and paid to each other. The appeal is from a final judgment by the district court after a jury trial. Appellant and cross appellee Donald Thomas Scholz ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1688p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Inc. is a fast food service company that sells pizza through a national network of over 4200 stores. Inc. is the second largest pizza company in the United States. The essence of a successful nationwide fast food chain is product uniformity and consistency. Uniformity benefits franchisees because customers can purchase pizza from 3 any Domino's store and be certain the pizza will taste exactly like the Domino's pizza with which they are familiar. This means that individual franchisees need not build up their own good will. It ensures the brand name will continue to attract and hold customers. Section 12.2 is subject to a reasonableness clause providing that Domino's Pizza. When Do Franchisors Have Market Power? DPDD was formerly a subsidiary of Domino's Pizza. The plaintiffs in this case are eleven Domino's franchisees and the International Franchise Advisory Council. Even though the dough producing stores were willing to sell dough at a price 25% to 40% below Domino's Pizza. FPC was appointed the purchasing agent for IFAC member Domino's franchisees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1847.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on consolidated brief for petitioner Town of Norwood. Were on consolidated brief for respondent. Whittaker and Winston & Strawn were on brief for intervenor New England Power Company. Stever and Dewey Ballantine LLP were on brief for intervenor USGen New England. I. THE HISTORY Our history of this case is drawn primarily from the administrative record. New England Power is a subsidiary of New England Electric System. Wholesale sales in interstate commerce are subject to regulation by FERC under the Federal Power Act. Those charged by Mass Electric to its business and residential customers) are subject to state regulation. Electricity sales have been regulated on the familiar public utility model: the rates have been set forth in filed tariffs. Unreasonable or unduly discriminatory rates have been forbidden. The suppliers are vertically integrated and are engaged in electricity generation. Legislators and regulators have over the last 25 years sought to introduce a greater measure of competition into the electric power industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D82A28800025BC33882569FB00617636/$file/0035117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981396.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The corporation was formed in 1993 to engage in the business of purchasing model homes and leasing them back to the home builders for 2 the purpose of removing the home from the home builders' balance sheets and freeing up capital for paying down debt or other purposes. Some of whom were sent an information memorandum describing AMHC's business plan. Resource is a self managed real estate investment trust. Interested parties are expected to review independently all documents relating to this memorandum as to the accuracy and completeness of the information contained herein. The commitment it was seeking from lenders. The funds were used in sixteen different transactions between AMHC and various home 1 AMHC refers to this agreement as the Master Agreement. We will simply call it the letter agreement. 3 builders. The letter agreement was not renewed and the parties did not enter into a joint venture. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia under the forum nonconveniens provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) (West 1993 & Supp. 1998). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1291.html">ON-LINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. BODENSEEWERK PERKIN-ELMER GMBH, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendants <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>C. Kyle Musgrove</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Francis H. Which is used in an infrared spectrometer to determine the composition of gases such as emissions from industrial plants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The spectrometer captures the gas to be tested and directs a beam of infrared light through the chamber containing the gas.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>After the light has passed through the chamber. Was that over the long path created by multiple reflections of the light beam within the chamber. Primarily because o </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3253_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The suit might have been dismissed immediately. For Magnatech rather than Sanderson is the appropriate plaintiff. His injury (a reduction in the value of his stock) is derivative of Magnatech's. It is not the sort of jurisdictional problem that a court must notice on its own. R. Evid. 702 is doubtful. Lime deposits in plumbing are calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Which is non magnetic. Positive reports about magnetic water treatment are not replicable. This plus the lack of a physical explanation for any effects are hallmarks of junk science. We shall indulge the assumption that adverse statements about Magnatech's products are calumnies. The problem is not that the pleading is short. Is that his complaint and other papers demonstrate that the claim rests on a belief that the antitrust laws forbid all </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D17C39FC223E44388256E5A00707A65/$file/0035117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1530a.html">PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC. V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Marquess argued the cause for petitioner. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the </p> <p>brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the </p> <p>brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the </p> <p>Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na </p> <p>tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding </p> <p>that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato </p> <p>ry is supported by substantial evidence. We have seen irresponsible companies build pro </p> <p> . </p> <p>jects which have caused more pollution than should be per </p> <p>mitted. We are now threatened with construction moratori </p> <p>ums in many counties in California.". Advocat </p> <p>ing regulatory action which will force construction companies </p> <p>to pay their employees a living wage. The unions </p> <p>are arguing [to local governments] that the economic rewards </p> <p>of development are lost when local people aren't hired at the </p> <p>prevailing wage. Were delaying and ". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcwOTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7090_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury verdict once broken is difficult to put together again. It is difficult to refashion the verdict in a way that accords each party substantial justice. The jury may have made an error favoring defendant. We ordinarily will not consider the argument on appeal. Whose parent is United Technologies. The Fabris warranted and represented to UTI that [n]one of such commissions nor any other money or thing of value has been or will be paid. Including when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-2157.opa.html">UNIVERSITY OF FLA. V. KPB, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>University of Fla. v. 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ2ODUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4685-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This telecommunications appeal involves a question about how the prevailing regulatory regime rooted as it is in legacy technology applies to products and services far from contemplation at the time the regime developed. The current appeal is a direct fallout from the move toward deregulation. Global Local exchange carriers are companies that provide local telephone service. 253 (2006). 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 contends that the Board erred in concluding that Board determined local calling areas2 would continue to control whether a call is a toll call or a local call and in prohibiting Global from offering virtual NXX service.3 The district court affirmed these rulings. I. BACKGROUND An elementary knowledge of telecommunications law and terminology is helpful toward understanding what is at stake in this appeal. Local calling areas are not defined as such in the Code of Federal Regulations or the U.S. A local calling area is a region of service for a particular telephone service plan. Refers to telephone numbers assigned to a customer in a local calling area different from the one where the customer is physically located in circumstances where the telephone company assigning the number is not using facilities of its own to transport the call from the calling area associated with the telephone number to the area where the customer is actually located. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0457p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the district court's injunction is based entirely on the jury's verdict. I. BACKGROUND This case involves MTH's claim that Lionel misappropriated MTH's trade secrets and was unjustly enriched by that misappropriation. The parties were involved in both criminal and civil litigation in South Korea. After several individuals associated with Lionel were convicted of criminal charges. Lionel and MTH are both distributors of O gauge model trains. The model trains they distribute are scale replicas of actual trains. The trains are manufactured by a process known as zinc die casting. Which is a precise method of construction in which molten metal is injected into pre shaped molds. About 200 to 300 design drawings are required to produce each scale engine. Other subcontractors had access to all Samhongsa designs and were allowed to make and retain copies of those designs. Engine parts are numbered in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316248.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the agreements were unenforceable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9540.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision and order is enforced. Is estimated to be the fourth or fifth largest hog slaughterer in the United States. Hog producers deliver hogs to Excel's buying stations where the hogs are placed into a holding pen. The hogs are then transported to one of Excel's three slaughtering facilities (located in Illinois. The hogs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-1530a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Darin L. Yager were on the brief of amici curiae LPA. With her on the brief were Leonard R. Because we agree with the Board that the unions' activities were protected by the Na tional Labor Relations Act. Because the Board's finding that petitioner's lawsuit was both unmeritorious and retaliato ry is supported by substantial evidence. An internal union report explained: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-6007.htm">99-6007 -- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL LEAGUES INC. V. VERY MINOR LEAGUES INC. -- 07/28/2000<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0314p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Manufactured and sold fruit flavored water beverages. 7 Up (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Believed Geyser's price increase for its concentrates was unreasonable. Who were eventually added as plaintiffs. 7 Up never notified American of any mediation. <hr> implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and theft of trade secrets. 1 Jt. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0232p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such agreements were made possible by the 1996 Act. Incumbent [local exchange carriers] are subject to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry. Foremost among these duties is the [Local Exchange Carrier's (LEC's)] obligation under 47 U.S.C. § 251(c) (1994 ed. Local telephone service was mostly provided by state regulated monopolies. SBC is the incumbent provider for telephone service in Northeast Ohio. These arrangements were necessary to minimize the barriers to market entry erected during the period in which the incumbent provider functioned as a monopoly. The incumbent provider is required to negotiate an agreement. Or is inconsistent with the public interest. The 1996 Act requires providers to enter into </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-2157.opa.html">UNIVERSITY OF FLA. V. KPB, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>University of Fla. v. 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-1047.htm">02-1047 -- HARVEY BARNETT INC. V. SHIDLER -- 08/06/2003<BR></A><BR> Which is used to help instructors understand </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Case LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-3246.wpd.html">FIRST SAVINGS BANK V. FIRST BANK SYS.<BR></A><BR> (2) that FirstBank was. Further hold that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the FirstBank mark is confusingly similar to the 1971 federal registration </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clorox and United Industries are competing producers of roach bait insecticide products.2 Clorox manufactures and sells Combat. Which subsequently was amended. The lighting is dark. A generic </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/96-5082a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Robert V. With her on the brief were Eric H. Both at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were W. It was suggested without contradiction at oral argument that it has not so proved. Seeking information collected by DOE on forms that these facilities are required to file with DOE's Energy Information Adminis tration Forms EIA 867. It held that Niagara had failed to raise an issue of material fact against DOE's position that the information was exempt because its release (1) would cause substantial competitive harm to the entities submitting the information (the QFs). The court also rejected Niagara's claim that no FOIA exemption could apply because the information was already publicly available. * * * The language of Exemption 4 protects from disclosure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312565.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: At issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff appellee State Farm Fire & Honorable Fern M. Sitting by designation. * Casualty Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411447.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are broiler growers under contract with defendant operators of poultry processing facilities. Are liable under other related causes of action. The estimates included a disclaimer which provided that the projections were for illustrative purposes only and not intended as a forecast of actual performance. Which by that time was the only one of the defendant entities conducting business with the The various defendants operate an integrated poultry processing business. These eggs are then hatched at a hatchery. Soon after the eggs are hatched. The young chicks are sent to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-9157.opa.html">KASON INDUS., INC. V. COMPONENT HARDWARE GROUP<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kason Indus. The essence of Kason's complaint is that CHG produced and marketed hardware nearly identical to that which Kason produces and sells. Kason's 533D latch is a snap action chrome finished latch and handle used on commercial refrigerators. It was Kason's most popular item for the first fifteen years of its manufacture. Is unclear from the district court's opinion and the record. Estimated that in 1995 sixty to seventy percent of 533D latches were sold in the replacement market. Is the OEM market.<p> In 1985. CHG began manufacturing a latch that Kason claims is virtually identical to its 533D latch. CHG's latch is designated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-9157.opa.html">KASON INDUS., INC. V. COMPONENT HARDWARE GROUP<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kason Indus. The essence of Kason's complaint is that CHG produced and marketed hardware nearly identical to that which Kason produces and sells. Kason's 533D latch is a snap action chrome finished latch and handle used on commercial refrigerators. It was Kason's most popular item for the first fifteen years of its manufacture. Is unclear from the district court's opinion and the record. Estimated that in 1995 sixty to seventy percent of 533D latches were sold in the replacement market. Is the OEM market.<p> In 1985. CHG began manufacturing a latch that Kason claims is virtually identical to its 533D latch. CHG's latch is designated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969157.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The essence of Kason's complaint is that CHG produced and marketed hardware nearly identical to that which Kason produces and sells. Inc. is a distributor of CHG's products. Kason's 533D latch is a snap action chrome finished latch and handle used on commercial refrigerators. It was Kason's most popular item for the first fifteen years of its manufacture. Is unclear from the district court's opinion and the record. Estimated that in 1995 sixty to seventy percent of 533D latches were sold in the replacement market. Is the OEM market. The district court's disposal of Kason's non Lanham Act claims is a bit unclear. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ACAFBA8856D2747088256DA2005B0CCE/$file/0256038o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is withdrawn from submission until further order of this court and all further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the California Supreme Court. There are no controlling precedents resolving these important questions. The answers will in all probability determine the outcome of the present appeal. Our phrasing of the questions below is not meant to restrict the California Supreme Court's consideration of the issues involved. Is deemed the petitioner in this request because California appeals from the district court's adverse rulings on the specified issues. The caption of the case is: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. The names and addresses of counsel are: For the State of California: Jan Zabriskie. II QUESTIONS OF LAW The questions of law we wish to be answered are: A. Concerning the assets of an insolvent insurance company for which the Insurance Commissioner is acting as conservator or liquidator. III STATEMENT OF FACTS As this case was dismissed on the pleadings for failure to state a claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/097EFD8699A3E12B88257003007861E5/$file/0217264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must also decide whether Appellants' claim of false advertising pursuant to the Lanham Act was properly dismissed for lack of standing after trial. Which provides that JRTCA affiliates and members will recognize only the JRTCA registry of Jack Russell Terriers. Will not register their dogs with conflicting organizations such as the American Kennel Club ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/051307732AED999E88256BF20076E542/$file/0035815.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue presented is whether summary judgment was appropriate on grounds that the design is functional and therefore not protectible as a trademark. Underlying this question is the evidentiary role of a trademark registration in such a proceeding. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment against the trademark holder because the product design is not fanciful. Consequently cannot have trademark significance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/985468.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a trade secret case filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by BP Chemicals Ltd. The undisputed facts are as follows. FCFC is a publicly traded Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei. FCFC is a subsidiary of a Taiwanese conglomerate known as the Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). Which is owned by Y.C. FCFC has a contract with JOC under which JOC will fabricate vessels in New Jersey for delivery to FCFC in Taiwan. It is performance of this contract that the instant action seeks to enjoin. The process for soliciting bids was that 4 FCFC's engineering team would prepare a bid package and send it to a purchasing group. That the purchasing group was actually the purchasing group of FPG. There is no evidence that any U.S. vendor received bid packages directly from FCFC. FCFC also has business contacts with the United States that are unrelated to its acetic acid plant project. Lummus is receiving daily faxes from FCFC in Taiwan. These sales were normally made in Taiwan through Taiwanese agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1005.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E0673C81254FCC688256EE80057CC30/$file/0257148.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court determined that Nissan Motor's dilution suit was not barred by laches. That Nissan Computer's first commercial use of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055340p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The fourth claim was for negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiffs also assert that primary jurisdiction was an improper basis for dismissal. That their unjust enrichment claim was improperly dismissed on the ground that they had not pled individual reliance. That they should have been allowed to amend their complaint. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.1 The District Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and (6). Which confers federal jurisdiction over class actions where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055428p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree and will reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of the underlying RICO suit are straightforward. Weiss was employed by Tucker Anthony Sutro as an investment banker. He was insured by First Unum through a group insurance policy with Tucker Anthony Sutro. The policy provided long term disability benefits when the insured is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0801p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court erred and will vacate its judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.[fn2] I. Mainframes and Upgrades The facts underlying this nine year old dispute are minutely detailed and quite voluminous. We will present only a brief summary here. IBM is the world's largest manufacturer of large scale mainframe computers. These machines have the capacity to process millions of records at a time and manage a tremendous volume of information. Mainframes are physically large machines. They are quite expensive. Mainframes are available in a wide range of computing capacities. One common measure of capacity is computing speed. In what is known as a MIPS upgrade. Many IBM mainframes are not purchased outright from IBM by their end users. Are instead leased through third party leasing companies such as CMI and Comdisco.[fn3] A mainframe will typically be leased to several end users during its life cycle. Then when obsolete will be scrapped. The computer will need to be reconfigured to meet the needs of the next lessee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lay </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1586.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murray with whom Lorusso & Loud was on brief for Aastar Mortgage Corp. P.C. was on brief for Star Financial Services. The court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. Reversal of the denial of the motion is warranted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021565.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> QUALITY MANUFACTURING Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Assembling shirts for Sara Lee was Quality's only line of business.1 In January 1998. Which caused it to have shortfalls in its production output. Quality was producing approximately 75% of Sara Lee's sports shirts. It began to have concerns at this point about its relationship with Quality. This agreement was similar in most respects to the parties' prior agreements. The production schedule was subject to review and revision each month at Sara Lee's sole discretion. This agreement further provided that Sara Lee was under no obligation to use Quality on an exclusive basis or to purchase a minimum number of products from Quality. The agreement's scheduled termination date was December 31. The following day Quality wrote Sara Lee a letter stating that it was Quality's goal to build sports shirt production to 10. Quality was rarely able to produce more than approximately 8. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1121.html">H.R. TECHNOLOGIES, INC V. ASTECHNOLOGIES, INC<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/952238P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While recognizing that the entities have undergone name changes and consolidation in the past. 2 1 I. Is a federally chartered bank holding company with its principal place of business in FBS owns banks in several states and provides Since the early 1970s. Credit cards even though FBS did not have an office in Iowa. The former Metropolitan Federal Banks in Iowa were renamed First Bank Iowa. Is an Iowa chartered bank with its principal place of business in West Des Moines. FB was a From 1938 to 1993. FB was known as First FB has never owned a registered FB relies instead on 2 the common law of trademarks for its claim of an exclusive right to use FIRST BANK in connection with banking services provided in these counties. Also testified that he referred to FB as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051054np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for tortious interference with a contract. The primary issue is the choice of law to be used in resolving the dispute. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. ISTIL is chartered in Delaware. The case is rife with allegations of illegal payments to corporate and government officials in Ukraine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1438.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Thomas Greither ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1187.html">LEATHERMAN V. COOPER UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FOOTNOTES 1 COOPER ALSO ASSERTS ON APPEAL THAT THE POCKET TOOL DESIGN’S INHERENT FUNCTIONALITY PRECLUDES TRADE DRESS PROTECTION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT. 2 COOPER’S ASSERTED PUBLIC DOMAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 33. LEATHERMAN IS ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING TRADE DRESS CLAIMS IN THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN MULTIFUNCTION TOOL[S] BY REASON OF LEATHERMAN’S FAILED ATTEMPT TO SECURE FEDERAL PATENT PROTECTION FOR THE TOOL. 34. LEATHERMAN’S STATE TRADE DRESS CLAIMS ARE PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL LAW. 35. LEATHERMAN’S FEDERAL TRADE DRESS CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY REASON OF LEATHERMAN’S FAILED ATTEMPT TO SECURE FEDERAL PATENT PROTECTION FOR THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN TOOLS. 36. COOPER IS ENTITLED TO MAKE, USE AND SELL THE CRESCENTâ TOOLZALLä TOOL UNDER THE FEDERAL PATENT LAWS. 37. LEATHERMAN DEDICATED THE CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN OF THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN MULTIFUNCTION TOOLS TO THE PUBLIC BY DISCLOSING, BUT NOT CLAIMING, THE CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN IN AN ISSUED UNITED STATES PATENT. 38. THE CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN OF THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN TOOLS IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. COOPER’S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COUNTERCLAIM IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THIS COUNTERCLAIM SEEKS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT LEATHERMAN IS PRECLUDED UNDER THE FEDERAL PATENT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, 35 USC, FROM PREVENTING, OR ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT, COOPER FROM MAKING, USING, OFFERING TO SELL, SELLING OR EXPORTING THE CRESCENTÒ TOOLZALLä TOOL. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS COUNTERCLAIM UNDER 28 USC §§ 1338, 2201, AND 2202.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0192n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 2 1 Appellees Joanne Smart and Roberta Kurtz are the owners of Appellee Black & Red. That genuine issues of material fact remained that should have precluded summary judgment. Inc. was planning to sell. Appellant's motion was granted and the district court entered a judgment imposing a permanent injunction against Appellees in an order entered August 13. A bench trial commenced on the question of whether the infringement was willful. The parties were put on notice by the district court that it was contemplating reconsideration of its August 13. 2002 order may have been erroneous and providing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/022635p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lexington and Ranger are licensed insurance companies which underwrite bail bonds in New Jersey. Lexington alleges that Ranger's failure to pay the premium tax on gross premiums </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1139.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. I. BACKGROUND Dinesol and Tapco are competitors that manufacture and sell plastic building products. Standard shutters differ from custom shutters in that they are made available in pre fabricated sizes to fit standard sized windows. Tapco is also the owner of several patents directed to plastic building products. Seven of which are at issue in this case. Are directed to plastic building accessories. Are directed to customsized window shutters (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08468E0D5E386A2F882572AC0077AD1A/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That CCBill and CWIE were immune from liability for state law unfair competition and false advertising claims based on the Communications Decency Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/051469P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2549.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on brief. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. Manufacturer of a microbrew named Billy Budd Classic American Ale that was briefly distributed in New Hampshire during the fall of 1999. The rationale underlying the challenged judgments was explained in two meticulously reasoned opinions that. Caught on Bleu does not explain how the court erred in concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Anheuser Busch knew of the existence of Caught on Blue at the relevant point in time. It is not enough simply to repeat that the court did not give it the benefit of the doubt as it is required to do under Fed. Elaboration and specificity is needed when challenging a court's carefully explained final judgments.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/993245.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alvin alleges that he was deprived of expected pay increases. That his reputation was damaged in the process. He also contends that his tenure in the UPitt Pharmacology Department was improperly severed and that 2 he was transferred to a tenured position in the Dental School without his consent. That he was never afforded a hearing in which he could defend himself and explain both the propriety of his conduct and the unjustness of the deprivations he alleges that he suffered. The gravamen of Alvin's suit is therefore that he was deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment right in the property of his tenure without due process of law. Named as defendants were UPitt. The District Court's opinion focused largely on the question whether the alleged incidents comprised such a significant erosion of the incidents of his tenure that he was deprived of a property interest. With respect to some of Alvin's claims that he was deprived of secretarial support. That 3 his yearly evaluations were conducted unfairly. That his tenure was transferred he adduced no evidence that he attempted to use the grievance procedure to resolve them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1271.html">ROSCO, INC V. MIRROR LITE<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0882p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The underlying action is Acierno's request for declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for the County's alleged violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994).[fn1] Presently before us is the County's appeal from an order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting Acierno's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction directing the County to issue Acierno a building permit for development of a shopping mall. The district court also concluded that Acierno would suffer irreparable harm unless the County was compelled to issue the building permit and halt its interference with Acierno's development. The County argues Acierno failed to show he will be irreparably harmed unless a preliminary injunction issues against the County. A primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is maintenance of the status quo until a decision on the merits of a case is rendered. There is no evidence in this record to show that a delay in issuance of the building permit until this case can be decided on its merits would cause irreparable harm to Acierno. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12BFFB6D3CF0E52F88256E010072FEFE/$file/0256272.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Over a German toy company which has questioned her ancestry by asserting that Barbie was a copy of its doll and that Mattel had infringed its patent and other intellectual property rights. That lawsuit was resolved by a dismissal with prejudice of those and other claims. It presumably also helps to explain why a lawsuit was filed in Germany in May 2001 by G&H. That motion was denied by the district court. Mattel's entire lawsuit was dismissed by the district court. We conclude that the subject matter of Mattel's current lawsuit which concerns and is essentially defined by the claims currently asserted by G&H in Germany is sufficiently related to the action filed in California by G&H in 1961 to support personal jurisdiction over G&H in the current case. I. BACKGROUND At the center of this case is the question of whether Mattel. Unfairly copied a doll produced by G&H known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1390.html">CITGO V. U.S. FOREIGN TRADE-ZONES<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112012.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magic Windows consisted of the following: a scrambled message on the inside of a beverage container label which could be decoded and read only after the beverage container was emptied. Glancy orally 2 advised the Coca Cola representatives that the information concerning Magic Windows was confidential. Glancy also advised the representatives that PKM was pursuing global patent protection on Magic Windows. The agreement went on to provide: [T]here is no obligation to maintain in confidence any information that: (i) at the time of disclosure is available to the public. (iii) is in [Coca Cola's or its subsidiaries' or affiliates' possession]. The U.S. patent application was rejected in July 1998 because Glancy's claims were anticipated by information in a 1993 international patent application filed by Virtual Image. Aspects of Magic Windows. 3 1 (iv) is rightfully received from a third party. [or] ... (vi) [Coca Cola] can establish was subsequently developed independently by [Coca Cola or its subsidiaries or affiliates] independently of any disclosure hereunder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/14ECC72A3D2BE1C988256BDC0080619B/$file/0056217.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Judge Paez was elevated to the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants are the trustees of the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031286p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties have indicated that the dispute between Houbigant and Fireman's Fund has been settled. That appeal is moot. 1 I. The Insureds were granted a license to manufacture and sell certain Houbigant fragrances and use the trademarks associated with them. The Insureds were required to manufacture. (4) indicating that the Chantilly fragrance was produced by the Insureds. The Insureds were covered by two policies issued by Federal: (1) the Commercial General Liability policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTIxNTNfc28ucGRm/04-2153_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1364.html">AUGUSTINE MEDICAL V. PROGRESSIVE DYNAMICS<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Craig J. Of counsel on the brief was <U>J. Of counsel was <U>Robert M. With him on the brief was <U>Joseph F. Of counsel was <U>Mark A. It is undisputed that patent infringement was not part of this lawsuit. Progressive s convective warming blankets at issue in this unfair competition suit were the same as the accused blankets in the later filed patent infringement suit. The Settlement Agreement states in Paragraph 1: </P><DIR> <DIR> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1312.html">C&F PACKING CO., INC. V. IBP<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>William L. With him on the brief were <u>D. With her on the brief were <u>Roger Pascal</u>. F is an Illinois corporation that makes and sells meat products. Ostensibly to assure that back up suppliers were available to Pizza Hut. IBP was one of Pizza Hut </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No registration is for the word PETRO alone. The PETRO mark is almost always displayed in white letters with a green rectangular background. Was placed on the Principal Register of the Patent and Trademark Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52409B34E538D4B8882571FF00557AF9/$file/0455529.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1897.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that Chattanoga's trademark was 2 Nos. 01 1897. The district court found that Chattanoga's trademark infringement claims were barred under the doctrine of laches and that Michael Jordan could not be held liable in his personal capacity. Chattanoga claims to have continuously used the mark JORDAN to identify its Jordan Blouse Division products. Inc. and Michael Jordan Nike was established in 1971 and is one of the world's leading sports and fitness companies. There are apparel products identified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/014420p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The solicitation stated that the interest rate was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/023333u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Engaging in any activity or business or establishing any new businesses that are substantially in competition with Arch. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992245.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which was made applicable by the agreements. That the non compete clause was unenforceable because it was not geographically limited. Market America argues that the district court erred in ruling (1) that its non compete agreement was unenforceable. (2) that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the defamation claims. (3) that the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0856p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Retailers who market wallpaper by providing sample books and showroom displays have feuded with dealers who sell at a discount through toll free </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F43A980D299ECAF988256FA8007A2836/$file/0215035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were substituted as counsel for the appellant after oral argument. Was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. INC. 1837 advertising program is rendered moot by a settlement under which the vendor permanently modified its software and the website owner relinquished all claims. I Gator.com Corporation1 is the proprietor of a software program that enables computer users to store personal information including addresses. One of the targets of Gator's pop up advertisements was the website operated by L. When a user of computer equipment on which the Gator software was installed visited L. L. Bean alleged that these pop up advertisements misappropriated the good will associated with its trademark and threatened to initiate legal action if Gator did not discontinue this advertising practice. A deceptive or unfair trade or Gator.com Corporation is now known as the Claria Corporation. It will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1615.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were on brief. Souls & Woodbine was on brief. Circuit Judge. as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/986489.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is colorful. The District Court held that Rose Art's packaging did not have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1641.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyNjZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9266_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Savin Corporation argues that the District Court erred in holding that (i) the FTDA requires a plaintiff to demonstrate evidence of actual dilution even where the court finds that the at issue marks are identical. (ii) the standard for dilution under New York General Business Law § 360 l is the same as the standard for dilution under the FTDA. (iii) there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants appellees' use of certain at issue marks creates a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff appellant's marks. Which are essentially undisputed. Are derived primarily from the District Court's findings of fact. Was founded in 1959 and has its principal place of business in Stamford. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of marketing. Plaintiff's products are sold through seventeen company owned branches consisting of over sixty sales and service offices and over 250 trained dealers throughout the United States. Plaintiff's largest customers are in the government. Plaintiff's ownership of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066.html">FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>James B. With him on the brief was <u>Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John G. Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Rory J. With him on the brief were <u>Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Perry M. Also on the brief was <u>Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>James W. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA4MzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0831-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Georgi vodka is sold primarily in New York state. Is one of the top selling vodkas in the New York metropolitan area. It is generally cheaper than the leading nationally distributed vodkas. Bacardi is the largest selling brand of hard liquor in the United States. Inc. is one of the leading producers of beers and malt beverages in the United States. A new label was designed. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002153.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) is a regional entity created by the Virginia General Assembly and the District of Columbia City Council for the purpose of operating the federally owned Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Submitted a proposal but was not awarded the contract. We are asked to decide whether the district court had jurisdiction over this matter and. The courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia are vested with original jurisdiction </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1705a.html">ANR PIPEL CO V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1044.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for The Sherwin Williams Company. Brilliant and New England Legal Foundation were on brief for Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire. P.A. were on brief for Eastern Mountain Platform Tennis. Aluminum panels are washed with acid to eliminate grease and etch the surface. The panels are sanded to increase the profile of the surface. A layer of primer epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet epoxy primer layer. A topcoat of epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet topcoat. The paint system must have two important characteristics. The primer coat must adhere to the aluminum through extreme changes of temperature because the game is played outdoors on a year round basis with a heater installed under the platform to melt snow and ice. Both the primer coat and the topcoat must have the capacity to hold aluminum oxide aggregate to insure a gritty nonslip surface for platform tennis players. 3 Sherwin Williams had violated an express warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1411.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Approximately two and a half months before the trial was set to begin. 2000.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1258.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Howard</SPAN> were on brief. Dowell</SPAN> were on brief. ESLIC covered a portion of the risk that it faced from one of those policies ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982847.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The managed health care industry has drastically changed the way medical and pharmaceutical services are dispensed in this country. Competition is keen over what company will administer an employer's health plan. 2 In September 1995. Medco was required to assemble an extensive statewide network of pharmacies which would agree to fill prescriptions at a steeply discounted rate. The Maryland Plan was scheduled to go </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1954.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 17. Bradford & Veague were on brief for defendant. Was on brief for plaintiffs. *Of the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs are Ronald and Rosalie Masure. Defendant John Donnelly is a home builder. 3 Ronald Masure testified to the following. In September 1989 the Masures expressed an interest in buying a house Donnelly was then completing on Moosehead Lake in Northern Maine. They were particularly impressed with the view of the lake from the house. Donnelly informed the Masures that the asking price was $237. Donnelly was not present. The Masures were unaware of any problems with the house. Was informed by Edwards that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C798066B53CD96088256F18007C604E/$file/0135406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the incumbent local exchange carrier ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1167p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). Our review of these issues of standing and statutory construction is plenary. 1530 n.19 (3d Cir. 1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005251.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an extremely complicated motor vehicle dealer franchise termination case marked by disputes over what is known in the industry as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/953409P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. judgment of the district court. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement also specifically provided: That the Concession granted by this Agreement is not exclusive and Lessor shall have the right to deal with and perfect arrangements with any other individual company or corporation for engaging in like activity at the Airport. The larger companies paid a much smaller We AFFIRM the 2 percentage of sales in concession fees than the smaller companies because the concession fee was based on the number of deplaning passengers without regard to the sales or other indicia of market strength of each rental car company. companies. Changes were never made and the dispute continued. The state court action was removed to federal court at Dollar's request. The two actions were consolidated. The district court found Dollar failed to Dollar asserted this discrepancy was unfair. Is unfair. COMMERCE CLAUSE Dollar contends the rental fees for the counter space and parking spaces should be considered separately from the concession fees that are based on the number of deplaning passengers. as counter space and parking Although Dollar concedes the Commission is a market participant when it provides concession areas such 2 The Dollar In addition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0368p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Antioch Company's scrapbook album configuration is functional and therefore ineligible for trade dress protection. Antioch is trying to bar Western Trimming Corporation (Westrim) from selling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-3160.htm">00-3160 -- SPORTS UNLIMITED INC. V. LANKFORD ENTERPRISES INC. -- 01/03/2002<BR></A><BR> All based on allegations that Defendant had caused Plaintiff to lose business and had injured its business reputation.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-4018.htm">00-4018 -- STATE OF UTAH V. U.S. STATES DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR -- 07/10/2001<BR></A><BR> PFS is a limited liability corporation composed of electric utility companies from around the nation. The land involved in the lease is the Skull Valley Reservation in Tooele County. The lease between PFS and the Band was approved by the BIA Superintendent. The Superintendent stated that the portions of the lease redacted by the BIA were exempt from disclosure under Exemption Four of FOIA. As both agreed there were no issues of material fact. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants and the State filed this appeal. <p> <strong><center>II</strong></center> <p> The sole question for our resolution is whether the district court erred in holding that Exemption Four of the FOIA applies to the lease at hand. We </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: p.48. Grasso & Mortensen were on brief for defendants. Berry & Howard were on brief for plaintiffs. *Of the District of Maine. This is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court in an action brought by a number of foreign reinsurance syndicates. At issue are reinsurance contracts (or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30F069FE0BC1EB8C882572DB0056BB91/$file/0456039.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that it is unconscio 5606 DAVIS v. The merits of the underlying claims in her complaint are not at issue here. Because the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under California law. A cover memorandum stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5037a.html">USA V. MICROSOFT CORP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2388.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-8097.opn.html">WILHELM PUDENZ, GMBH V. LITTLEFUSE, INC. (6/7/1999, NO. 98-8097)<BR></A><BR> We hold that registered trademarks that have become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 may still be declared invalid if they are found to protect the functional features of a product. BACKGROUND</P> <P> Littlefuse and Pudenz are both companies that manufacture and market. At issue in this case are two of Littlefuse's registered trademarks associated with the marketing of this fuse. The first is the subject of U.S. The second is the subject of U.S. Both registrations have also achieved </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-8193.opn.html">ST. CHARLES FOODS, INC. V. AM.'S FAVORITE CHICKEN CO. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-8193)<BR></A><BR> That summary judgment was improper because the ambiguity in its contract with AFC would allow a reasonable factfinder to draw different inferences from the undisputed facts and that the ambiguity should be construed against AFC as the drafter. Because Church's was a competing restaurant chain. Al Copeland Enterprises was created as a successor to PFFCC to manage both the Church's and the Popeye's brands. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-8097.opn.html">WILHELM PUDENZ, GMBH V. LITTLEFUSE, INC. (6/7/1999, NO. 98-8097)<BR></A><BR> We hold that registered trademarks that have become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 may still be declared invalid if they are found to protect the functional features of a product. BACKGROUND</P> <P> Littlefuse and Pudenz are both companies that manufacture and market. At issue in this case are two of Littlefuse's registered trademarks associated with the marketing of this fuse. The first is the subject of U.S. The second is the subject of U.S. Both registrations have also achieved </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-8193.opn.html">ST. CHARLES FOODS, INC. V. AM.'S FAVORITE CHICKEN CO. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-8193)<BR></A><BR> That summary judgment was improper because the ambiguity in its contract with AFC would allow a reasonable factfinder to draw different inferences from the undisputed facts and that the ambiguity should be construed against AFC as the drafter. Because Church's was a competing restaurant chain. Al Copeland Enterprises was created as a successor to PFFCC to manage both the Church's and the Popeye's brands. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1279.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Stanley C. With her on the brief were John M. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (Bayer) appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruling that the proposed mark ASPIRINA is merely descriptive for analgesic goods. Because the Board's ruling is supported by substantial evidence. The examining attorney initially refused registration on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive. The examining attorney found that ASPIRINA is the Spanish word for aspirin and provided an online dictionary definition that equates ASPIRINA with aspirin. Bayer responded by asserting that ASPIRINA was a coined term with no known meaning in English or any other language. Bayer also asserted that the translation tool used by the examining attorney improperly translated ASPIRINA as aspirin without noting that Bayer was the origin of the goods and that Bayer was working with GOOGLE to resolve this translation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981653.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EFCE724C652ECD12882572E2007E583B/$file/0656774.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 5996 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH v. I. BACKGROUND This is the second time in four years that trademark litigation between these parties has reached this forum. When Moose Creek filed a trademark infringement action alleging that Abercrombie's Silhouette Moose Logo was confusingly similar to Moose Creek's moose marks. Moose Creek sought but was denied a preliminary injunction against Abercrombie's use of its logo. Reversal is appropriate only if the district court based its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact or erroneous legal principles. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D63F3B877F6632D88256F0400567419/$file/0335188.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The promotion was so popular with Timex that it just kept on ticking1 and continued using the footage well beyond any permission to do so. The result is a lawsuit that has taken on a life far beyond a simple copyright and trademark case. The consequence of this appeal is a series of rulings resulting in yet another round in the trial court. Arguing that Polar Bear's infringement claim is time barred. Even if it is not. The jury award is invalid because the evidence does not demonstrate a sufficient causal nexus between the infringement and the amount awarded. Because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that the lost and indirect profits resulted from Timex's infringeThe phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1257.html">INLAND STEEL V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/737F5585EF978652882570CE00820AE8/$file/0356719.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Stephanie Brown was an employee at one of Dillard's department stores in California until she was fired. Holding that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable under California law. We do not express a view on whether the agreement was unconscionable under California law. That is. We hold that Dillard's cannot compel Brown to honor an arbitration agreement of which it is itself in material breach. Dillard's is free on remand to contest those facts. Brown was summoned to the office of her supervisor. Howard told the employees that the company was starting the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42E55C0E4D108C2788256D83006E9355/$file/0255997.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mercado argues the district court erred in concluding that (1) Silvia Luevano was a sham defendant included in the action to defeat federal jurisdiction. (2) Mercado's bad faith claim against Allstate is foreclosed by Hamilton v. Mercado also contends the district court should have permitted her to submit further evidence in opposition to Allstate's summary judgment motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Emma Mercado was struck by a car driven by Brenda Brannon. Were added as payees on the settlement check. Brannon assigned to Mercado all claims and causes of action Brannon may now have or hereafter acquire against Allstate based upon the policy. Luevano was the Allstate employee who had handled the Mercado claim. There was complete diversity between the parties. Fraudulent Joinder [1] </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/313A86520816B63288256CBC005A886D/$file/0157095.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BRI is equally owned by four shareholders. Who are also its directors: Al Jardine. BRI is the registered owner of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/100D75881883DBAE88256E58007285A8/$file/0117059.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. 3290 CHURCHILL VILLAGE v. Although some were sold to individual consumers. The dishwashers were considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0FBA9B95AE4480E488256F380059B07C/$file/0335188.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. Polar Bear is not entitled to any recovery under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Nor is Polar Bear entitled to a new trial on damages under § 504. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/986502.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BreathAsure stipulated that scientific evidence established that its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/961552P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porous Media Corporation (Porous) and Pall Corporation (Pall) are manufacturers of industrial filters. That Pall made false and disparaging statements about Porous's filters which were not supported by Pall's own testing data. Those findings are not directly challenged in this appeal. The district court also entered an injunction against Pall which was not appealed. 24 3 2 Pall filed post trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. and Pall appeals. Because Porous failed to prove an element of the claim by failing to offer extrinsic evidence of customer confusion to show that Pall's statements were misleading. arguments. A. Jury instruction We reject both The trial court instructed the jury as to the elements of Porous's Lanham Act claim: The Lanham Act was substantially revised in 1988. Porous's claim for damages under the revised Lanham Act was dismissed by the district court before trial. This ruling is not appealed. The district court held that the amendments were not retroactive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1858.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Haley were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Hahn and ten other defendants were jointly indicted in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Hahn and Lujan were local marijuana dealers seeking to penetrate marijuana markets outside Arizona in order to capitalize on their connections with suppliers in Mexico. The New Hampshire operation was taken over by Hugh Mulligan. Large marijuana shipments were soon being trucked in from Arizona. Heino was released from prison in mid 1986. New Hampshire. 3 Hahn's primary role was to supervise marijuana ship ments from Arizona to New York and New England.1 In early 1991. Was recruited for the long haul runs between Arizona and the Northeast. On occasion he transported large quantities of currency back to Lujan at Hahn's request.2 The cross country trucking operation was a success. Thirteen to fifteen tractor trailer loads were transported from Arizona to the Northeast under Hahn's 1Hahn's secondary role was to ensure the security of the organization's marijuana supply in Arizona. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brilliance is in the business of producing and selling audiobooks. The two editions are packaged and marketed differently. It is unclear how. Audio Adventures LLC (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062649p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a discretionary decision. It turns on whether the Court believes that the case is. We emphasize that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042645p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the Insurance Contracts Mass Assets? . . . . . . . 13 IV. Capital claims that it properly established a basis in hundreds of insurance contracts that were terminated in that year. That it is therefore entitled to take a loss deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 165 to account for the cancellation of those contracts. That the zero basis found by the Court was inconsistent with the facts and hence clearly erroneous. We are convinced that Capital's process was thorough and professional. We are unwilling to affirm the Tax Court merely because we find some flaws in Capital's valuation process. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. The existence of some problems in Capital's valuation process will not justify finding a zero basis in the lost contracts. By proposing alternative methods that will lead to what. Such a procedure is insufficient to reject Capital's claimed deductions. The Service has inform[ed] Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance organizations that the Service will challenge deductions for losses that relate to the termination of 4 individual customer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2391.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BA5FAEEF2F7A3DBA88256F0B005982B9/$file/0355191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the claims were preempted by federal law. FERC reviewed electricity rates that were cost based. The primary factor in setting the rate was the cost of producing and transmitting the electricity. Utilities were also required to give a thorough explanation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1156p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only facts before us are those alleged in the complaint itself. Diamond is the President of ASA and Division Director for General Surgery at Allegheny General. Magovern is the President of CTSA and Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Allegheny General. Magovern accused Brader of incompetence and of having improperly rendered trauma treatment to a patient who was on the call service of CTSA (Magovern's group) although the details of Magovern's displeasure are not spelled out in the complaint. It was opposed by Magovern. That Brader could not practice medicine at Allegheny General if he was not employed with ASA. Which Brader contends was not performed in accordance with Allegheny General's medical staff bylaws. In May 1990 after the study was completed. Brader alleges that Ochsner was a personal friend of Magovern. Brader contends that he was prevented from having an informal conference with Ochsner in violation of the medical staff bylaws. That Brader's mortality experience was not surprising or unexpected but recommended that his performance of ruptured AAA procedures should be supervised due to excessive morbidity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/93-3508.html">BARNETT BANK V. GALLAGHER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Barnett Bank v. The Florida Associations of Insurance Agents allege that the district court erred in finding that Appellant Barnett Marion was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991273.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I Because this case is before us on appeal from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. The facts for purposes of this appeal are as follows. 2 In April 1995. Wuchenich was practicing anesthesiology in his well established private medical practice in California. No oral or written prior or contemporaneous agreements shall have any force or effect. Nor shall any subsequent agreements have any force or affect [sic]. The Physician Guarantee Agreement was not terminable at will. Baumunk that the postponements were unnecessary. Wuchenich </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7CDCB1F8A8992373882570930054C7DD/$file/0435229.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Idaho Potato Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55FD1970A5A6FB7A88256E68007CB036/$file/0216847.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To which were annexed certain supplemental state law claims. The plaintiffs appellants are Stephen Turner. An entity that employed the Turners.1 The defendants appellees are Ah Beng Yeo. A law firm in which Cook is a partner. The plaintiffs appellants' federal claims are that actions taken by Yeo and Martini. WPS was owned by the Golden Gate Trust. A family trust of which the Turner children were beneficiaries. Provided medical services to WPS and Susana Turner was WPS' general manager. Perkiss & Lew to assist in collection of the judgment assistance which appears to have continued until March. Subsequently an amended complaint was filed. WPS was not a plaintiff on the FDCPA claim or on the state law claims other than the Unfair Competition Act claim. The Turners asserted that because WPS was not owned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/951589P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing primarily that clearly erroneous findings of fact have produced a grossly inadequate damage award. We will only briefly summarize the relevant facts. Which are set out in detail in the district court's thorough published opinion. Crisp stated in his resignation letter among the dozen who left were three salesmen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021744A.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was secured by a mortgage on the Beatties' residence in Greenville. They claim to have made repeated attempts. Indicated that the Beatties' mortgage was satisfied. The Beatties concede that they have never paid all of the amounts due on the loan. NationsCredit attempted to collect the debt and informed the Beatties that their mortgage was in default. At some point after the LMS was filed. Revealed that their mortgage with NationsCredit was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1404.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Daniel L. With him on the brief was James M. With him on the brief were Eric P. With him on the brief were Robert E. The United States and Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1256.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Kramer & Friedman was on brief. LLP were on brief. BACKGROUND The Serpa Corporation is a distributor of plumbing supplies. Serpa was the exclusive sales representative in New England for certain plumbing supply products manufactured by defendant Anaco. Couplings are used to transport human waste from buildings to sewer lines. Because the products are manufactured in accordance with industry standards. They are virtually identical across companies. The products were sold through exclusive sales representatives. Tyler was a competitor of Anaco's. Rather than have Serpa serve as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges This is an appeal in a copyright case. Holding that Southco was unlikely to succeed on the merits because the serial numbers lacked sufficient originality to be copyrighted. Holding that an affidavit submitted by Southco in opposition to Kanebridge's summary judgment motion was sufficient to demonstrate that the numbers reflected considerable creativity. We now hold that the numbers are not protected by copyright. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1237a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Paul Glist. With him on the 2 brief were Thomas O. Schwartz was on the brief for intervenor Consumer Electronics Association. The FCC declined to rescind a rule that will preclude cable operators from offering set top converter boxes that bundle both security (descrambling) and non security (e.g. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/963321P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These cases are before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Challenges to the First Report and Order were consolidated in this court. The FCC's rules are codified in scattered sections of Title 47. All references in this opinion to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 1997 version. All references in this opinion to sections and subsections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the United States Code are to the 1997 supplement unless otherwise indicated. 2 4 3 2 I. Background We present a brief summary of the background of this case based upon the belief that all parties are familiar with the opinion of the Supreme Court as well as our prior opinion. Were contrary to the Act. Analysis The United States Courts of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders of the FCC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1) and 47 U.S.C. § 402(a) (1994). We must defer to the agency only if its interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the statute or is a reasonable construction of an ambiguous statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021744.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was secured by a mortgage on the Beatties' residence in Greenville. They claim to have made repeated attempts. Indicated that the Beatties' mortgage was satisfied. The Beatties concede that they have never paid all of the amounts due on the loan. NationsCredit attempted to collect the debt and informed the Beatties that their mortgage was in default. At some point after the LMS was filed. Revealed that their mortgage with NationsCredit was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952848.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. 2 1 * Asserting that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Was commonly used by the construction industry. EPICORE is not patented. Is twenty four and one half inches wide. EPICORE's roll formed sheets are characterized by these dovetail ribs. TYPE PDI The tooling required to form the steel into this profile is more A second issue raised by Condec on appeal. Is without merit. Her award of damages and injunctive relief as to Counts II and III is affirmed without opinion. The sheet steel bending is not reversed and is bent approximately sixty degrees. 4 3 complex than that required to form Type B decking. dovetail ribs take more sheet steel to form. EPICORE is more expensive to produce.5 Dovetail is defined as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2002/004318.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> American Depositary Receipts ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/93-3508.html">BARNETT BANK V. GALLAGHER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Barnett Bank v. The Florida Associations of Insurance Agents allege that the district court erred in finding that Appellant Barnett Marion was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1631.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Counsel</SPAN> was on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3132_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants in this class action have been permitted to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from the district judge's refusal to dismiss. Upon which the district court's jurisdiction was premised. These are claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint is a hideous sprawling mess. We have found it difficult and in many instances impossible to ascertain the nature of the charges. It would have been better had the defendants deferred their motion. Until either the defendants served contention interrogatories designed to smoke out what exactly the plaintiffs are charging. The judge told the plaintiffs to specify the acts of the defendants that they are complaining about so that he could decide how much of the complaint was preempted. The principal defendant and the only one we need discuss (the other defendant is a law firm charged with having assisted Ocwen in the misconduct of which the plaintiffs complain). Was at the times relevant to this case a federal savings and loan association engaged in servicing home mortgages originated by other lenders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2068.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief for respondent. Were on brief for petitioner. Before us are the Board's petition for enforcement of its order and Goodless' petition for reversal of the Board's conclusions of law. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The background facts are essentially undisputed. Goodless is a construction industry employer engaged in electrical contracting. The agreement authorized the 2 NECA to bargain with the Union on Goodless' behalf unless that authority was withdrawn with 150 days' notice of cancellation. Will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members (not established. Whichever is later. . . . The employer is required to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative. That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted. As long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-1277.htm">02-1277 -- KIDNEIGH V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 10/03/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2153.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hoffman were on brief for appellant. Cotchett and Susan Illston were on brief for appellees. Mass. 1993). 2Defendants named in this action are the NFL. Charles Sullivan (plaintiff or Sullivan) is the former owner and sole stockholder of SMC. Was the Patriots' owner at all relevant times. Was to sell the shares to the public. Member teams are not permitted to sell shares to the public unless three fourths of the members approve. William Sullivan was unable to persuade the other NFL owners to allow his proposed deal. The stadium subsequently was sold for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1928.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The tubes were used by Wellons. Wellons was awarded some but not all of what it sought. Saint Gobain filed for declaratory relief that it was not liable under warranties it provided in the contract selling the tubes to Wellons. Saint Gobain claimed that the breakage was not caused by a defect in the tubes and that. The date by which the parties agreed delivery of all the tubes was complete. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96058D191C528691882571AF007F7F09/$file/0455874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> GMP cross appeals the district court's determination that it is engaged in unauthorized sublicensing. That Appellants are barred by the doctrine of laches from taking legal action now. Based on undisputed evidence establishing that they should have known of GMP's allegedly infringing activities well beyond the statutory period for bringing suit. 1454 (9th Cir. 1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The Bank was founded in 1887 under the name Economy Federal. Both marks are used in conjunction with the Bank's characteristic wheat emblem. HHF is an Illinois corporation in the mortgage lending service business. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6218.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are three related businesses that manufacture and distribute indoor tanning lotions. Is the exclusive distributor of Australian Gold. It is indoor tanning products. That are at issue in this lawsuit. <hr> distributors must agree to market. These agreements have generally prohibited distributors from selling Products over the internet or selling Products to anyone else who will sell them to the general public over the internet.(2) Plaintiffs enforce the integrity of these agreements by attempting to stem the flow of Products to businesses other than tanning salons. Have spent over $1 million on such efforts. Quality Tanning & Distributing LLC d/b/a/ United Domain Management are all businesses created by the Hatfields through which the Hatfields have resold Products over the internet. Because the Hatfields were aware that Plaintiffs objected to the sale of Products on the internet. By switching the original name of the business from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031309np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge This is a tale of one company's efforts to extend the terms of its contract with another company. There is no question that the integrated contract between the parties stipulated a four year term. Nor is there any question that Wastecorp. This case is easily resolved: Wastecorp. We are convinced that our intuition was correct and that the District Court's orders should be affirmed. I. BACKGROUND ITT is a multi billion dollar. Which ITT and its predecessors have used in association with industrial pumps since 1935. Wastecorp is a manufacturer of industrial pumps with annual sales of approximately $1 million.1 In 1993. Wastecorp would not have entered into the Agreement. Soja stated that the issue of renewability was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0344-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was decided by a two judge panel. The resulting settlement was the largest in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the history of antitrust law. Defendants agreed not to tie their debit and credit products together and to pay more than $3 billion to plaintiffs in exchange for the release of any and all claims that were or could have been filed against defendants or their member banks (non parties in this action) based on the conduct alleged. Was an Visa and MasterCard are national bank card associations. The discount fee is determined by the acquiring institution. Economics demands that the discount fee be greater than the interchange fee the acquiring 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1356.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Orkin Exterminating Company. Were on brief for appellee. Was the manager of the Hingham. Global was in the chemical application lawn care business and operated in the same area as did Orkin's Hingham branch. The case was tried to a jury and all claims were submitted to the jury. It is from the findings and rulings of the district court on these claims that Orkin appeals. It follows that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6277.htm">00-6277 -- VITTORIA NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C. V. EURO-ASIA IMPORTS INC. -- 12/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972492.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Some of the video footage was used by ABC in a PrimeTime Live broadcast that was sharply critical of Food Lion. 402 was entered on the various claims. I. In early 1992 producers of ABC's PrimeTime Live program received a report alleging that Food Lion stores were engaging in unsanitary meat handling practices. The allegations were that Food Lion employees ground out of date beef together with new beef. ABC reporters Lynne Dale (Lynne Litt at the time) and Susan Barnett concluded that they would have a better 5 chance of investigating the allegations if they could become Food Lion employees. Some of the videotape was eventually used in a November 5. The truth of the PrimeTime Live broadcast was not an issue in the litigation we now describe. Food Lion sought to recover (1) administrative costs and wages paid in connection with the employment of Dale and Barnett and (2) broadcast (publication) damages for matters such as loss of good will. Punitive damages were also requested by Food Lion. Diminished stock value or anything of that nature </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-4153.man.html">FREHLING ENTERPRISES V. INT'L SELECT GROUP (10/18/1999, NO. 98-4153)<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a servicemark infringement case. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun29/03-30470-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that the two contracts that are the basis of the breach of contract claims barred the plaintiffs from pursuing trademark related claims. I. BACKGROUND As habitués of New Orleans are well aware. Members of the Brennan family are uncommonly blessed with a talent for restaurateuring. Was opened by Owen E. Dickie was not a signatory to the In the late 1990s. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1544.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AutoZone argued that the agreement could not be performed within a year and was therefore void under the Colorado statute of frauds. 113 (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. As we have noted. Unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party charged therewith: (a) Every agreement that by the terms is not to be performed within one year after the making thereof. Because the alleged agreement was not in writing. The agreement was void under 38 10 112(1)(a). Is an oral agreement void when: (1) the agreement contemplates <hr> performance for a definite period of more than one year but (2) allows the party to be charged an option to terminate the agreement by a certain date less than a year from the making of the agreement and when (3) the party to be charged has not exercised that option to terminate the agreement? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3932_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since 1990 many of these tables have featured one rather than two legs on each end. Shows the idea: Between 1990 and 1997 Bretford was the only seller of computer tables with a V shaped height adjustment system. Bretford contends that the V shaped design is its product's trade dress. The appeal presents two principal questions: whether Smith System is entitled to copy Bretford's design. Whether it was nonetheless wrongful for Smith System to use Bretford components in a sample table shown to the Dallas buyers. Which (A) is likely to cause confusion. 4 No. 03 3932 shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. ... (3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register. The person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. Which they may do down to the last detail unless a feature of the product is protected by patent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948700.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.1 Appellants and Cross Appellees. The two cases were consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. is listed as a separate defendant in Case No. 93 CV 2938. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. 3 are involved in the restaurant business. Concluded that Defendant's rights were superior in Georgia. We remand the matter to the district court to determine if Defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. The first such restaurant was opened in October 1989 in Winston Salem. We treat these separate entities as if they were one. 3 North Carolina. The LONE STAR CAFE mark covers both clothing items and The mark covering restaurant services was by a New York City nightclub operator. restaurant services. registered in 1981 Plaintiff's predecessor corporation purchased the LONE STAR CAFE mark from the nightclub in 1992. Which registration is now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/014166u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Providence Washington Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963119.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant CNA Financial Corporation (CNAF) is the parent holding corporation of Continental Casualty Company (Continental). The Valley Forge Life Insurance Company ­ are collectively known in advertising as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1511.html">EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. GOODYEAR<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1682.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The common drive for financial returns now brings us a dispute over rights to the income stream of the fastest growing ophthalmic drug in history. <P> The entire range of claims articulated by plaintiff appellant was dismissed by the district court on summary judgment. We will begin our analysis.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054685np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the District Court's finding that 2 Glenpointe acted in bad faith. We also find that it was error for the District Court to order that the lease in question was terminated in its entirety. Buck was responsible for annual fixed rent payments in the amount of $1. Buck was responsible for its proportionate share of operating expenses and real estate taxes. In pertinent part: 1 Glenpointe West is a 330. Paragraph 27(J) of the Lease provides the guidelines for Glenpointe's consent: (1)(a) Whenever Landlord's consent or approval is required under the Lease. Landlord agrees that such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed at such times as Tenant is not in default in the performance of any of its obligations under this Lease after notice and the expiration of any applicable cure periods provided herein. It is provided that Landlord's consent or approval as to any matter will not be unreasonably withheld. It is established by a court or body having final jurisdiction thereover that Landlord has been unreasonable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-14511.opn.html">PALMER V. BRAUN (4/9/2002, NO. 01-14511)<BR></A><BR> The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction after determining that Palmer was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim. THE AVATAR COURSE</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1975.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bachrach and Bowditch & Dewey were on brief for appellants. Demallie & Lougee were on brief for appellee. The conveyors are generally used to transport lightweight plastic products from molding machines in which they are formed to other machines for packaging. Our recitation of the facts is hampered by the district court's failure to make any findings in issuing the injunction. The statement is not intended to be binding on the district court. 2 2 Ultraline conveyors under the IMS tradename through IMS's own product catalogues. Are strikingly similar in appearance. Are to some extent functional. At least as they are presented in the advertisements. That the trade dress of its Ultraline conveyors is a well established mark in the industry and that. An Ultraline and a Supraline conveyor were made available to the district court for review. The court indicated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963119.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant CNA Financial Corporation (CNAF) is the parent holding corporation of Continental Casualty Company (Continental). The Valley Forge Life Insurance Company are collectively known in advertising as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ACFF0DE3663BE67688257177007E5B65/$file/0555828.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The critical issue in dispute is whether the State owns any protectible interest in the trademarks. Which were both built in the 1820s. Each building has a rich history: Casa de Pico was built by Pio Pico. While Casa de Bandini was built by a Peruvian immigrant of Italian descent who became a prominent San Diegan. The Casa de Pico building was operated as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001505.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Hunter argues on appeal that the district court erred in finding that there was no solicitation of its employees. To determine that the noncompete provisions are unenforceable. That the district court erred in concluding that even if the noncompete provisions were Hunter dismissed its claims against Salter prior to trial. Hunter was not entitled to recover any damages for the employees' breaches of those provisions. Which is a Maryland corporation with offices throughout the country. Is engaged in the sale of various services and products relating to financial accounting and human resources administration. Mann are former employees of Hunter who are now employed at Deloitte. Which is an international consulting firm. Is a competitor of Hunter. Smith was a supervisor in the Department. Each of the employees was a party to a signed employment agreement with Hunter. EMPLOYEE agrees that he/she will not employ or solicit the employment of any HUNTER employee or any of HUNTER's consultants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-14511.opn.html">PALMER V. BRAUN (4/9/2002, NO. 01-14511)<BR></A><BR> The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction after determining that Palmer was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim. THE AVATAR COURSE</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10216.opn.html">BOARD OF WATER, LIGHT AND SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (6/20/20002, NO. 01-10216)<BR></A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023603p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in approving a $44.5 million nationwide settlement agreement between DuPont and the fixed co pay consumers and out of pocket consumers (collectively. Accordingly we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Factual History Warfarin sodium is a prescription oral anticoagulant medication sold in tablet form that is taken by more than 2 million Americans to treat blood clotting disorders. Fixed co pay consumers refer to those insured consumers who paid the same price for prescription drugs regardless of whether the drugs were name brand or generic. Out of pocket consumers refers to individuals who paid different prices for prescription drugs depending on whether they were name brand or generic. When a generic version of warfarin sodium was released onto the market following approval by the U.S. Class action plaintiffs have alleged that DuPont. DuPont's alleged violations are said to have begun when Barr Laboratories. On the grounds that the methods in place for determining bioequivalence were sufficient. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1860.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Capone LLP</SPAN> were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. The sinking was the result of an allegedly faulty rudder dropping out of the vessel. The F/T NORTHERN TRAVELER ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2058.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that although Sullivan's mark is entitled to protection. Sixteen participants are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM1NzYtY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-3576-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/981108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pony argues that Ohio law governs this case and that summary judgment was inappropriately granted before the completion of discovery. I. Pony is an Ohio corporation. (Equus of Missouri) is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in St. (Equus) is also a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in St. Zhou was employed in Pony's Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) department as a data The Honorable Patricia A. Some of this work was performed while Zhou was on the job at Pony. Is also a former Pony employee in its shipping and warehouse department who left to work for Equus of Missouri. A court in which the action could have been brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (1996). We lack jurisdiction to review this transfer because it was made by a district court outside the Eighth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (1996). Which state law applies in a diversity case that has been transferred between federal courts is determined by the nature of the transfer. The forum state will apply its own procedural rules but must apply substantive law based on its conflicts of law doctrine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0492n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Welsh is an employee of Wachovia. Welsh was injured in a motor vehicle accident in December 1991. He was denied both short term and long term disability benefits. A. Short Term and Long Term Disability Plan Liberty is the Claims Administrator for both short term and long term disability claims brought pursuant to Wachovia's Short Term and Long Term Disability Plans ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1799p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal primarily presents an issue that divides sister Courts of Appeals and is of first impression in our court namely. Dismissed the remaining defamation action on the ground that the alleged defamatory statements were not sufficiently directed toward the plaintiff so that a jury could reasonably conclude that they referred to him. Our standard of reviewing the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. Shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law. Are to leave regulation and taxation of the insurance business to the states and to ensure that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110216.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1380.html">COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. V. FUJITSU LIMITED, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Joseph M. Of counsel was <u>Dan Goldman</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Preston Moore</u> and <u>Jun Tsutsumi</u>. Of counsel was <u>James Oliva</u>. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> The University sought to have some of the counterclaims dismissed on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the University s motion to dismiss Counterclaims 6 11 but stated that it may be necessary to revisit the question of [the University s] waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Competitive Techs. v. Claiming that the district court s order was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine of <u>Puerto Rico Aqueduct &. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-4153.man.html">FREHLING ENTERPRISES V. INT'L SELECT GROUP (10/18/1999, NO. 98-4153)<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a servicemark infringement case. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1419.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Cynthia C. Of counsel on the brief were Lois E. The decisions of the Board have been consolidated on appeal. BACKGROUND Rath is a German citizen who applied to register the marks for goods and services including. The applications were based upon ownership of a German trademark registration for the marks. The marks were again found to be primarily merely surnames. The Board also held that section 44 of the Lanham Act (which implements the Paris Convention) does not require registration of a mark that is primarily merely a surname. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B). 1420 2 1 II Rath does not appeal the Board's holdings that his marks are primarily merely surnames under the meaning of section 2(e)(4). He specifically </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96o1172.html">SPRAYTEX V. DJS&T<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6C74EBA1558CF09882570BC00779208/$file/0357052.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eisenhower's fascinating written account of World War II is the subject of a more mundane. I was approached by representatives of various publishing houses. Are often inclined to use contemporary accounts as source materials . . . . Certain of these books on the African and European campaigns were riddled with inaccuracies. They contained conclusions that had slight basis in fact and were the hasty conceptions or mis 15370 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX v. Who were functioning partners for the proposal. Pointed out errors in these publications and said that since these were written during my lifetime and were not denied or corrected by me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10216.opn.html">BOARD OF WATER, LIGHT AND SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (6/20/20002, NO. 01-10216)<BR></A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A97FBBA18D29793882570580054FC2D/$file/0316218.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there are issues of material fact as to (1) whether the mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/0141662.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Providence Washington Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul22/03-30470-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that the two contracts that are the basis of the breach of contract claims barred the plaintiffs from pursuing trademark related claims. I. BACKGROUND As habitués of New Orleans are well aware. Members of the Brennan family are uncommonly blessed with a talent for restaurateuring. Was opened by Owen E. Dickie was not a signatory to the In the late 1990s. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07FE3838B97B1F3288257177007CC014/$file/0357102.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/013503P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Demanding that it refrain from using the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D9F27163E7812F788256EEB00576EC0/$file/0335818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A noncompete agreement generally is void and unenforceable unless agreed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/051441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is currently the president and sole shareholder of Guy Rogers Sales. He is presently 69 years old. Rogers was selling approximately one million dollars annually of its ceiling fan products. If the parties were to end their relationship. Any person or entity which is engaged in the manufacture. Supply or sale of ceiling fans and accessories . . . which are competitive with those products manufactured. For which Sales Representative was responsible. Or with respect to which Sales Representative was provided or had access to Confidential Information . . . . (b) In the fall of 2004. He believed Minka was going to hire a new representative to represent its lighting products unless he agreed to discontinue his relationship with Emerson and begin to sell Minka's ceiling fans. The letter was dated October 1. Springer did not warn Rogers that he was contractually bound to wait one year before he began working for Minka or remind Rogers of any other contractual obligations after he left Emerson. He told them that he was leaving Emerson and would be representing Minka's ceiling fan products and would like to continue doing business with them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1526.html">THE NAUTILUS GROUP V. ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Mark S. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief were <u>Larry R. Todd</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Robyn L. Trademark to sell its exercise equipment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Nautilus is the holder of the ". Tab stops:.5in'>Nautilus and ICON are direct competitors in the market for home exercise equipment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Both produce resistance training systems that use bendable rods.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>In Nautilus's product. The rods are arranged vertically. Outward.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The rods are structured to resist this outward movement. 000 machines have been sold. The bendable rods are arranged horizontally so that they bend downward. Is replaced by a circular crosshairs.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Beneath the mark. Line height:200%'>While its appeal of the patent infringement issue was pending. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1896.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 9: insert the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974284P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> National Parcel Service is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1965.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judgment was therefore\ entered in favor of both Altria and Philip Morris. Explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0709p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts in this case are. Bell of Pennsylvania told Pastore that it planned to order the same system for all of its 800 facilities if this pilot project was successful and that it might extend to as many as 4. The pilot project was timely completed and Bell of Pennsylvania officials expressed satisfaction with NASSCO's performance. Pastore was informed that a security system had been installed by an entity entitled Integrated Access Systems in the Monroeville Revenue Accounting Center. Although the site was within the network of facilities to be installed and serviced exclusively by NASSCO. Other already approved projects which were part of the first planned phase involving installation of the CDACCSN statewide were not carried forward. While none of the work planned for the second or third phase was initiated. Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment was inappropriate because they did not have adequate time for discovery. [fn3] and explicitly provides that the party must file an affidavit setting forth why the time is needed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1414.html">GAMUT TRADING CO., ET AL, V. USITC<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Lloyd W. With her on the brief were <U>Lynn M. Of counsel<A NAME= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981083.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Appellant Collins and appellee Drews are both in the gambling business and compete to distribute in South Carolina the wildly popular gambling machine called Pot O Gold.1 Leisure Time Technologies (formerly U.S. We refer to this company throughout as Leisure Time. 2 Collins admittedly was in violation of its quota by not purchasing any Pot O Golds. Collins is not buying his quotas or he hasn't bought anything from us in a long time. We don't think he's going to buy anything from us and we were wondering if you'd consider being our distributor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-4606.ord.html">FLORIDA BRECKENRIDGE, INC. V. SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-4606)<BR></A><BR> After receiving notice that Solvay believed that Breckenridge was infringing on its trade rights. Were requested to file supplemental briefs. Arguing that Solvay's appeal was frivolous. A company merely had to file a New Drug Application ('NDA') or an Abbreviated New Drug Application ('ANDA') and prove that their product was safe. The FDCA was amended to require proof that the product was effective as well as safe. The companies producing these drugs were given a two year window to submit revisions of their NDAs to prove their efficacy. Groups of drugs with approved NDAs were evaluated by an independent panel. The evidence was submitted to the FDA. A notice was published in the federal register and a supplemental NDA would be approved for these drugs. All drugs are new drugs and therefore require an approved NDA or ANDA before marketing unless they are generally recognized among experts as safe and effective for their labeled use (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/987203.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was in good faith as a matter of law. The four principals are LIM's only employees and Feinstein's employees at Corporate Consultants perform LIM's clerical and bookkeeping work. This transaction was its first sale.1 Through the end of 1995. Is significant because on that the date AT&T announced the creation of LTI to the public through a huge media campaign. LTI's Adoption and Use of the Name and Mark LUCENT LTI is the telecommunication and technology business spun off from AT&T in 1996. LIM amended the application after this suit was filed to claim the September 5. At the same time the law was revised to provide that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2ODNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7683_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are affiliated corporations which. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/981902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Notwithstanding a consultant's report indicating that the name was the customers' least popular choice. Shortly after the line was introduced. Lean Cuisine is packaged in white boxes. This is superimposed on a red diagonal ribbon. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1608.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S</U> were on brief. Borges</U> were on brief. S blanco no se puede </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-4606.ord.html">FLORIDA BRECKENRIDGE, INC. V. SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-4606)<BR></A><BR> After receiving notice that Solvay believed that Breckenridge was infringing on its trade rights. Were requested to file supplemental briefs. Arguing that Solvay's appeal was frivolous. A company merely had to file a New Drug Application ('NDA') or an Abbreviated New Drug Application ('ANDA') and prove that their product was safe. The FDCA was amended to require proof that the product was effective as well as safe. The companies producing these drugs were given a two year window to submit revisions of their NDAs to prove their efficacy. Groups of drugs with approved NDAs were evaluated by an independent panel. The evidence was submitted to the FDA. A notice was published in the federal register and a supplemental NDA would be approved for these drugs. All drugs are new drugs and therefore require an approved NDA or ANDA before marketing unless they are generally recognized among experts as safe and effective for their labeled use (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2052.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</U> were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1053.html">BBA NONWOVENS V. SUPERIOR NONWOVENS<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs cross appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2272.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sharif executed a promissory note to Dunkin' Donuts on (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. It is undisputed. Dunkin' Donuts formally notified Sharif that the Franchise Agreement was terminated. The gravamen of Sharif's counterclaims is that Dunkin' Donuts wrongfully prevented it from selling its franchise interest to Mr. A deal that allegedly would have satisfied its obligations to Dunkin' Donuts while allowing it to make a profit on the sale. The agreement states that it is contingent on Dunkin' Donuts' approval and the transfer of the lease by the landlord. No formal agreement to sell the franchise was ever executed. Dunkin' Donuts was not allowed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F75C846040C51E0688256EBE004D32BB/$file/0217423.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul Revere paid Hangarter benefits for an eleven month period and then terminated her benefits based upon the opinion of its medical examiners and claim investigators that Hangarter was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/696C7B02F87B74C2882572960063EEE8/$file/0617367.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which alleged (among other things) that Progressive's policy of claiming such reimbursements was an unfair business practice under California's unfair competition law. Now vests original jurisdiction for class actions in federal court where there is minimal diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 5. It also gives appellate courts jurisdiction over appeals from orders remanding class actions to state court by creating an exception from the general rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) that such orders are not reviewable. The question we must answer is whether CAFA authorized Progressive's removal of this class action. Both the original complaint and the 3 original cross complaint in this action were filed before February 18. If either of these pleadings is deemed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041282P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Everest Capital Limited is a Bermuda based investment advisor that began managing off shore </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0312p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 I This is a trademark infringement case brought by a Japanese maker of fishing tackle against American distributors of competing goods. The goods at issue are fishing line guides. Different guides have different fishing uses. Lighter guides are used on fly rods or fresh water spinning rods. While heavier guides are used on rods that require little casting or heavier bait. Strength in several dimensions is as important as flexibility. Aerodynamic when the rod is in motion. Fuji is a family run company. The President is the grandson of the founder. Four patents are here relevant and they are depicted. All of these patents teach a method of manufacture where the line guide is formed from a single piece of sheet metal. The guides at issue in this case are also made by stamping and forming. Figure 1a illustrates how Fuji's model N line guide is made from forming stamped metal. Fuji applied for and was granted seven design patents. Are illustrated in Figure 2. Examples of the allegedly infringing designs against which Fuji took action are not included in the record. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1188a.html">ALLDATA CORP V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1387.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Carney & Bassil was on brief for appellant. Hoag & Eliot LLP was on brief for appellee. Was mailed to California. From time to time placed orders with shoe component suppliers which were instructed to bill Lyle directly. The action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is constrained both by the long arm statute of the forum state and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/96-3102a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: Appellant Richard Gartmon was convicted of interstate transportation of securities obtained by fraud and of money laundering in connection with a scheme to defraud the George Washington University Health Plan. (3) the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial after federal agents spoke with an excused alternate juror who subsequently was re empaneled. (4) the evidence was insufficient to establish venue in the District of Columbia on most of the money laundering counts. Was also charged with subornation of perjury. He told her she was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that the federal securities claim of one of the investors is barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree with the district court's disposition of the federal securities claim and conclude that the investors have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to (1) whether the law firm made a statement containing a material omission upon which the investors relied. Even when the lawyer did not sign or endorse the document and the investor is therefore unaware of the lawyer's role in the fraud.1 We will reverse the judgment of 1. We later set forth the following specific requirements to hold such a lawyer liable: (1) the lawyer knows (or is reckless in not knowing) that 3 the district court insofar as it granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment on the federal securities claim as to three of the four investors. We will reverse the judgment of the district court on the investors' common law fraud claim. Which claim was timely as to all four investors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1308a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/93-9077.html">ORIGINAL APPALACHIAN ARTWORKS V. S. DIAMOND ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Original Appalachian Artworks v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16D4E3306B91D50988256C4B00542608/$file/9971317.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 is amended to include docket number 00 70189. Which was inadvertently omitted from the opinion caption. Establishes an elaborate and complicated structure that governs labor relations in almost all of the industries within the nation's private sector.1 Collective bargaining is the central concern of that structure. Labor unions are essential to the collective bargaining process. That helps secure the role of unions in the collective bargaining process by permitting 1 The National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 and significantly amended in 1947. The railroad industry is covered separately by the Railway Labor Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982225OR.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is hereby DENIED. Such a view is utterly irreconcilable with the principles underlying our system of dual sovereignty. The federal chancellor's control over basic state functions will be unfettered and complete. I will briefly recapitulate the principal factors that in combination rendered the district court's refusal to abstain an abuse of discretion. 1. 1974 (1999) (Equity jurisdiction does not vest federal courts with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1922.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lvarez</SPAN> was on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. 13. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/93-9077.html">ORIGINAL APPALACHIAN ARTWORKS V. S. DIAMOND ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Original Appalachian Artworks v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CFE7744A3DD584188256C7D00041477/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031159.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PLEMMONS Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I.1 Defendant is the founder and former president of Golden Needles Knitting. Under which he was to receive $6.8 million plus interest at the expiration of a three year noncompete period. Rizoti was employed by Golden Needles from 1992 to 1997 and subsequently by Ansell. Rizoti was receptive to the idea. Who is Defendant's nephew and who had worked in the glove industry in various capacities since 1989. As part of an effort to maintain the appearance that Defendant was not yet involved in the business and thus. Drum called Rizoti and told him that Defendant would soon have the money from the noncompete agreement. Although the Atwoods were generally receptive. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4252.htm">01-4252 -- BELL V. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULURAL COOPERATIVE -- 11/07/2003<BR></A><BR> The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative. Insurance. <p> If a member whose ranch is located beyond the established feed route still requests delivery. One of the cooperative's written objectives is to ensure members do not subsidize one another. The discounted price was one penny less per pound than the delivered price. <p> Jack Bell became a Fur Breeders member in 1955 and continued as a member until 2000. Is more than seventy miles from both the Logan plant and the nearest point of the established delivery route. 049.51. <p> <center>PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</center> <p> It is against this backdrop and the costs associated with hauling their own feed that the Bells brought their antitrust litigation against Fur Breeders. Determining their antitrust claims were sufficient to withstand such a motion. <em>Id. </em>at 1244 45. <p> Thereafter. A different district court judge was assigned to the case. Determining </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E4A09D8EAA46F12B88256B870061677B/$file/9971317.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Establishes an elaborate and complicated structure that governs labor relations in almost all of the industries within the nation's private sector.1 Collective bargaining is the 1 The National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 and significantly amended in 1947. Labor unions are essential to the collective bargaining process. That helps secure the role of unions in the collective bargaining process by permitting unions and employers to enter into agreements requiring employees to become union members.2 It is the interpretation of that provision that is at issue in this case. The railroad industry is covered separately by the Railway Labor Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1652a.html">AMER SCHLST TV PGRM V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041225P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the case was properly removed to federal court. The propriety of remand is the only issue before us. As it was in the district court. Which permits removal where a person is sued for actions taken under the direction of a federal officer. Philip Morris claims it satisfies the requirements of the federal officer statute because it was acting under the direct control of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) when it engaged in the allegedly unlawful conduct. Which uses a smoking machine that takes a two second puff on a cigarette every sixty seconds until the cigarette is smoked to a specified length. The FTC was aware that the testing method did not measure the amount of tar or nicotine that an individual smoker may receive. The purpose of the test was not to replicate human smoking but to provide a basis for comparison. Which was conditioned on suspension of the formal rulemaking proceedings. Our review of that denial is de novo. (3) have a colorable federal defense. The Supreme Court explained why the federal officer removal statute was not meant to be given a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939077.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-1188a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Leonard R. Petitioner's salesmen were paid largely on commission. Each salesman must have met his quota for the previous three months. Abbadessa's tenure in petitioner's employ was tumultuous. The primary concern among those in Abbadessa's region was their changing commission formula. Pincus was not unsympathetic. Abbadessa was rejected for promotion because of his antagonistic relationship with Snap On. Sug gested that he thought Abbadessa was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/02-5342a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA12EAE1E7DD7C488256D1600736A46/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ORDERED filed. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/591DAF74D57F7E4C88256E5A00707CC3/$file/0055122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It has been said that bad credit is like a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1554.html">ENERCON GMBH V. USITC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1060.html">TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR V. MOTOROLA<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1812.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bader were on brief. Pierce Atwood were on brief. The Maine Committee is a nonprofit membership corporation. Among its activities thus funded is the publication of voter guides describing the position of congressional candidates on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1734.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP were on brief. Jones and Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis were on brief. Arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all counts. That the action was barred 1. The plaintiffs in this action are Harold S. That both the compensatory and punitive damages awards are legally unsustainable. The facts are described as the jury might have found them. The sixth investor was Larry Ansin. Who was. Inc. was incorporated in August 1987. Larry Ansin's total investment in the venture was $100. For which he was issued a certificate. That was 10% of the then issued shares. 000 shares and was president of the company. 500 shares and was secretary and treasurer. Keenum and Simons were two of the three members of the Board of Directors. Each of the original investors contributed another $500 in capital and Larry Ansin was issued a share certificate for 437.5 shares in R O Realty. He would have to sign a non competition agreement. Harold Ansin did not know how many shares he was purchasing. Understood that he was buying his son's entire 10% interest in River Oaks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D06EED7E97A7520388256AC5005C2482/$file/0055122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It has been said that bad credit is like a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034399p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Advising them that they were delinquent in water fees owed to the City in the sum of $252.75. The letter stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/526A379772BF5DFA88256FA500059763/$file/0335480.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a Washington timber company's claims arising from the alleged breach of a timber contract were properly dismissed on summary judgment. Ballinger was formerly the president of Balkin Enterprises. It was sold by one William Abraczinskas. We must also decide whether either of those decisions was an abuse of the district court's discretion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Hambleton Brothers is a family owned and operated Washington timber company founded in the 1950s. Balkin Enterprises was an Oregon corporation that engaged in real estate. Hambleton Brothers's decision to enter into the timber contract was based in part on Adams's appraisal of the timber value and in part on discussions with Dale Kinsey. Hambleton Brothers did not know at the time of the contract formation that Balkin Enterprises was also paying Adams a fee for his services. Title to the FruitA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200611/04-1183a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Joan Dreskin. With him on the briefs were Anne K. With him on the briefs was Brett A. With him on the brief were John S. The Act's fundamental purpose is to protect natural gas consumers from the monopoly power of natural gas pipelines. (Marketing affiliates are the separate affiliates of pipelines that sell natural gas. (ii) a factual record consisting of complaints by other sellers who were competing with pipelines' marketing affiliates and of documented abuses by pipelines and their marketing affiliates. Traders) that are affiliated with pipelines. Indicated that abuse by pipelines and non marketing affiliates was a real problem in the 4 industry. That the factual record on which FERC relied was barren and did not contain a single example of abuse involving non marketing affiliates. We therefore hold that the Order is arbitrary and capricious as applied to natural gas pipelines. We will grant the petition. Processors distill </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F52D3535493F7E2D88256CBF00038667/$file/0155834.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is commonly prescribed for Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-1463a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1538.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> were on brief for Appellants.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982758.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Regarding a breach of contract claim brought by Mike Mitchell and S&D Land Clearing (S&D) and denying its motion to set aside an award of attorneys' fees.1 Mitchell cross appeals the ruling of the district court that he failed to present sufficient evidence of damages resulting from 1 This action was brought by the United States for the use and benefit of S&D and Mitchell. We will refer to the action as having been prosecuted by Mitchell. 3 D'Elegance's fraud and accordingly was not entitled to treble damages for the fraud under North Carolina's unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. Waste Control Services (Waste Control) was the prime contractor with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) by virtue of a written contract covering eight counties in North Carolina. Removing vegetative debris is quicker. The loading costs would have been an additional $1.00 per cubic yard. That he would not have entered into 2 C&D debris consists of building and demolition materials. 3 C&D debris must be sorted by type of material and hauled to different locations. 4 the subcontract had he known that he would not be allowed to remove the vegetative debris. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1135.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nereida Melendez Rivera and McConnell Valdes were on brief for defendant Volvo Car Corporation. Daniel Harris and Law Offices of Daniel Harris were on brief for plaintiffs Luis Bonilla. We are asked to examine numerous rulings and decisions in a complex civil suit brought under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs are a class of individuals and corporations who. The cars were imported to Puerto Rico by Trebol Motors Distributor Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972490.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that GM's actions were not in violation either of the contract. We decline to reach the question on appeal. 2 GMC Trucks was for a five year period and included attached notices that the Love dealership's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972314.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For Appellees. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Marlinton and Central Market are two grocery stores located in southeastern West Virginia and southwestern Virginia. He stated 3 that these meetings were in person. We recognized that on remand the district court would have to resolve the question of whether Marlinton had antitrust standing. Flav O Rich and Valley of Virginia were joint venture partners of Valley Rich. 3 See Supermarket of Marlinton. Arguing that the action was both time barred and that Marlinton lacked antitrust standing to bring suit because it could not prove that it purchased a price fixed product from any of the dairies during the relevant period. Who by then claimed to have a poor recollection of his price fixing discussions with Meadow Gold officials. (3) there was guaranteed pricing. (4) the milk was sold to a customer under a private label. Or (5) the milk was purchased from a distributor to whom Valley Rich sold milk. Valley of Virginia are the only defendants remaining in the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1488.html">L.D. KICHLER V. DAVOIL<BR></A><BR> Of counsel was <U>Lowell L. With him on the brief was <U>Max Ciccarelli</U>.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="302"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982228.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case requires us to determine under what circumstances the configuration of a product can constitute inherently distinctive trade dress that is protectable under federal law. Because we conclude that a product's configuration qualifies as inherently distinctive trade dress if it is capable of functioning as a designator of an individual source of the product. The parties' roles were reversed: SanGiacomo sued Ashley charging that it had infringed the trade dress of SanGiacomo's bedroom furniture and seeking a declaratory judgment that a design patent obtained by Ashley was invalid as a matter of law. The design and overall appearance of the Sommerset suite were unique and unlike any other bedroom furniture ever sold. Although these individual features have been used in other bedroom suites. Another expert opined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061140p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the right to a jury trial on state law claims brought in federal court is governed by state. Marra and DiGravio had no right to have a jury decide their PHRA claims. Is responsible for developing and operating public housing in the City of Philadelphia. Edward Marra and Albert DiGravio were both employed in supervisory positions in the Inspections Division of PHA's 3 Design and Construction Department.1 DiGravio served as a Rehabilitation Supervisor. Marra's direct supervisor was Georgette Galbreth. Are recounted below. He was responsible for arranging and overseeing the inspection of houses that had been rehabilitated by PHA to ensure compliance with all pertinent housing codes. Among the several housing inspectors who worked under Marra were DiGravio. Formal notices of appointment were sent to both Paladino and Wright but later rescinded after George Fields. Although his salary and job duties were not materially affected by the demotion. Finding that PHA had discriminated against them in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.4 Fields and three other PHA employees (no one of whom is of particular relevance to our case) were also named as defendants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1231p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These eleven consolidated[fn1] actions were brought by concerned Pennsylvanians who believed that they were being charged excessive fees and interest on their credit cards and that these charges violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. None of the defendants are Pennsylvania lending institutions. The cases were all brought in Pennsylvania state courts and then removed by the defendants to the federal system.[fn2] These cases require that we resolve the conflict between state consumer protection law and federal banking law. We will first consider the district courts' holdings that removal jurisdiction was proper. We will reverse the district courts on this issue. The Supreme Court's conservative extension of the complete preemption doctrine and the application of the Third Circuit's two pronged test establish that federal jurisdiction is lacking in those cases in which the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints to allege federal claims. We will next consider claims particular to these actions. We will affirm the district court to the extent that the court held that plaintiffs' state law claims regarding late charges and over limit fees were substantively preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1285_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ConFold was a new company that wanted to produce such containers. That is an analysis of how best to deal with goods returned by customers. It was conducted pursuant to an agreement. Between it and Polaris that was entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/98-1266a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Andrew J. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief was Donald B. Circuit Judge: Before us are petitions for review of two rulemaking orders of the Federal Communications Commission. The orders changed the financial terms applica ble to companies that purchased licenses to provide personal communications services (PCS) at an auction in which bidding was limited to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Does have standing to petition for review of the new rules. Although the changes to the Commission's fi nancing rules are indeed retroactive. I. Background Broadband PCS are a type of mobile telephone technology. In keeping with its statutory mandate to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2218.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nadzo and Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry were on brief for appellee Mid Maine Waste Action Corp. Kandutsch and Verrill & Dana were on brief for appellees Waste Management. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee City of Auburn. Were seeking to monopolize the waste disposal business and otherwise acting in violation of federal and state law. I. THE BACKGROUND This case is one of several in which state and local communities have taken measures to cope with their waste collection responsibilities. Private haulers have been adversely affected and responded with antitrust suits. In this one the history is tangled and the claims numerous. As is customary in reviewing dismissals for failure to state a claim. Non stock corporation to assist in waste disposal. 2 2 The entity Mid Maine Waste Action Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974342.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were tried by a jury for various offenses stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids at real estate foreclosure auctions. Both Appellants were convicted of violating the Sherman Act. Romer was convicted of bank fraud. I. Appellants are real estate speculators who. The purpose of the conspiracy was to hold down the price of auctioned properties by agreeing not to bid against one another at auctions an activity commonly known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200311/02-1260a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/38BB76995113D9EE88256BB30081AEB2/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-2146.opa.html">VILLARREAL V. WOODMAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Villarreal v. Villarreal alleges that when he was a pretrial detainee in the Gadsden County Correctional Facility ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1758.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 2. Insert space between </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-4253.opa.html">GAMBETTA V. PRISON REHAB. INDUS. AND DIVERSIFIED ENTERS., INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gambetta v. In that neither the Supreme Court nor the courts of appeals have addressed the matter comprehensively. That the employer in this matter is a state instrumentality. The result of that inquiry is that we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.<p> I.<p> <p> Chapter 946 of the Florida Statutes mandates that a private. PRIDE simulates a real world business environment: inmates complete employment applications and are interviewed. Named as defendants were DOC. We assume that DOC and its officials are no longer involved in the suit. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/01-1326a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Andrew W. With him on the brief were Jane E. Epstein were on the brief for intervenors National Cable & Telecommunications Association. The owners of poles and conduits have an obligation to lease space to companies that wish to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-2247.htm">99-2247 -- CREATIVE GIFTS INC. V. UFO -- 12/15/2000<BR></A><BR> Including the contention that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1326a.html">SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Russell Campbell argued the cause for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-5161.htm">97-5161 -- BISHOP V. EQUINOX INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR> The district court determined that the circumstances of the case were exceptional. Both parties are dissatisfied with the result. Bishop contends that he is entitled to an accounting of profits. That the attorney fee award was an abuse of discretion. Bishop discovered that Equinox was marketing a dietary supplement under the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001040.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that Southern's interference was justified or privileged because Southern acted for the purpose of protecting its own </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/033151p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Either that (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/711AF70C54478F6888256B9100030575/$file/0055147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the exclusive United States distributor of Karl Storz rigid endoscopes. Endoscopes are precision surgical instruments used in many types of minimally invasive surgical and diagnostic procedures. Since these claims are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1263a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McClelland were on the briefs. Were on the brief. The Commission designed a scheme intended to ensure that any system not facing such competition would nevertheless charge approximately the same rates as if it were in a competitive market. A system operator's initial permitted rate either was its rate in effect on September 30. Or was calculated in accordance with certain FCC formulas and worksheets with out reference to rates in effect on September 30. One of the cable operators' complaints in that case (and the only one relevant to Time Warner's instant petition) was that the FCC unreasonably did not allow </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1551.html">GRAPHIC CONTROLS V. UTAH MEDICAL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/495ab3dc0228e24688256c090059d5af/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/032065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The paragraph states (1) pasta lovers have enjoyed Mueller's pasta for 130 years. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/38bb76995113d9ee88256bb30081aeb2/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9DC5E8659754C9E88256E5A00707C3A/$file/9916981.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for his predecessor. District Judge: Appellants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1925p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a trademark action brought by Iberia Foods against Rolando Romeo. Because the Mistolin products sold by Rol Rom are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0484p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the district court's decision finding Defendant Appellant Boyd B. The central issue on appeal is whether Greene timely appealed the district court's orders finding him in contempt and directing him to pay compensatory damages. Used product specifications for the StakPak that were almost verbatim the same as Gnesys's specifications for the HYDRASEP device. The district court found that Greene willfully violated four provisions of the Injunction and consequently was in contempt. A party must file a notice of appeal with the district court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-2157.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1598.html">BAYER AG AND BAYER CORPORATION V. HOUSEY<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Rudolf E. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Rolf O. Summerfield</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>M. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Laura W. 007 for failure to state a claim.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Because we conclude that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) is limited to physical goods that were manufactured and does not include information generated by a patented process. Because the physical goods here (drug products) were not manufactured by a process claimed in the asserted patents. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2799.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Messina filed two subsequent motions in the district court for reconsideration of the first contempt order: one motion claimed that the record in his direct appeal was incomplete. Appellees were among the five defendants named in the two suits. The 1989 complaint alleged unfair competition and was insulated by a protective order. The 1990 suit alleged a conspiracy to sell adulterated orange juice and to violate RICO by selling mislabeled products and this was under a seal and protective order. When the parties were to appear before Nos. 01 2799 & 01 3024 3 Judge Zagel. Messina was not present. Messina was not present. Messina also represented that he was still counsel for Grove Fresh. Appellees charged that: (1) Messina was in contempt of court for repeatedly violating the seal and protective order for the 1990 case by his disclosures of confidential discovery material in a brief filed with the Court of Appeals. (2) Messina was in contempt of court for failing to appear before Judge Zagel when ordered to do so. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/495AB3DC0228E24688256C090059D5AF/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001680.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ullyot is removed from list of counsel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-2157.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1052.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The McCabe Group were on brief for appellants. Kaler with whom Gadsby & Hannah was on brief for appellees. PH was formed by Rolf Hickmann. Because the interests of Birch and Cognetics are inexorably intertwined for purposes of this appeal. Cognetics was to provide PH with both Dun & Bradstreet's European data bases and the Cognetics software to analyze them. The Agreement was signed in January of 1987. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962146.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Villarreal alleges that when he was a pretrial detainee in the Gadsden County Correctional Facility ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012456.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal in a declaratory judgment action commenced by Betterbox Communications. I. Betterbox and Black Box each sought to introduce the testimony of an expert witness on the following question: whether there was a likelihood that consumers would be confused by the Betterbox and Black Box marks. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Which requires an expert witness to have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D516334F4061022A88256D8100783635/$file/0255076.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants removed the Cox complaint to federal court and the case was assigned to Judge Kelleher. Judge Kelleher (1) remanded to state court the claims under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act because the defendants could not show that those claims satisfied the amount in controversy requirement necessary for diversity jurisdiction and (2) retained the Unfair Competition Law claims because the defendants established that diversity jurisdiction requirements were met for those claims. Cox moved to voluntarily dismiss the portion of the Cox complaint that was pending in federal court before Judge Kelleher. Is granted. 1 2 Cal. That new action is removable to federal court. The Retail Flooring complaint asserted that federal court jurisdiction was based on the 1999 order from Judge Kelleher dismissing the Cox complaint. Beaulieu moved to dismiss the Retail Flooring complaint for lack of jurisdiction and the motion was granted with ten days leave to amend. II We first address whether we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-2146.opa.html">VILLARREAL V. WOODMAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Villarreal v. Villarreal alleges that when he was a pretrial detainee in the Gadsden County Correctional Facility ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1777p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The critical issue before this Court is whether petitioner Dorsey Trailers. This Court will grant the petition for review but will enforce the Board's Decision and Order in part. Pennsylvania plant.2 The United Auto Worker's International and its Local 1868 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-4253.opa.html">GAMBETTA V. PRISON REHAB. INDUS. AND DIVERSIFIED ENTERS., INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gambetta v. In that neither the Supreme Court nor the courts of appeals have addressed the matter comprehensively. That the employer in this matter is a state instrumentality. The result of that inquiry is that we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.<p> I.<p> <p> Chapter 946 of the Florida Statutes mandates that a private. PRIDE simulates a real world business environment: inmates complete employment applications and are interviewed. Named as defendants were DOC. We assume that DOC and its officials are no longer involved in the suit. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-5410a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 12. Kandutsch and Verrill & Dana were on brief for Ford Motor Company. Murray and Law Offices of Peter Murray were on brief for Acadia Motors. Or adjustments are made free of charge to the consumer. The Dealers are required under their Agreements 3 with Ford to perform labor and to provide parts in satisfaction of the warranties. Ford is obligated both under the Agreements and under Maine statute to reimburse the Dealers for parts used and warranty work performed. Each dealer is eligible to be reimbursed at wholesale cost. 1176 was amended to require manufacturers to reimburse dealers at retail equivalent rates. The surcharge was imposed based on the number of cars sold. Alleging that the surcharge was unlawful. Was calculated to recoup Ford's increased costs of doing business over time. The warranty reimbursement level and the surcharge were lawful.3 The Dealers also moved for partial summary judgment. They argued that any price increase to recover the reimbursement rate required by 1176 was itself a violation of the statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8600030F90A4637488256AA3005A481F/$file/9916981.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for his predecessor. District Judge: Appellants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1990p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is from the dismissal of all counts of a complaint filed by Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-12225.man.html">CUNNINGHAM V. FLEETWOOD HOMES OF GEORGIA (6/6/2001, NO. 00-12225)<BR></A><BR> Concluding that Fleetwood was a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement but that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act precludes arbitration of the Cunninghams' written or express warranty claims. We assume for the purpose of deciding this case that Fleetwood is entitled to the benefit of the arbitration agreement.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961763P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. claims and was dismissed from the case. Although Doe settled his claim and was dismissed from Roe's Br. at 1 n.2. This action was the case. Doe is no longer a party to this action. This case remains a We will therefore In 1989. United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 Insurance on property I [Roe] give as security is required. If insurance is required. I promise to keep the property insured throughout the term of my loan and to deliver a certificate of insurance to you that shows I have purchased insurance of this kind. ... I will immediately repay you for any amounts you spend in purchasing that insurance. In force during the term of the loan and will furnish Norwest . . . with a loss payable endorsement upon each renewal of said insurance. Which indicated that only Norwest's interest in the vehicle was insured. The same process was repeated. Which is otherwise similar to ordinary comprehensive and collision coverage. Is limited to either the damage to the collateral or the balance of the customer's loan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/95-2848.man.html">EPIC METALS CORP. V. SOULIERE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Epic Metals Corp. v. Asserting that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Was commonly used by the construction industry.<p> In 1968 Epic developed EPICORE as an alternative to Type B deck. EPICORE is not patented. Is twenty four and one half inches wide. EPICORE's roll formed sheets are characterized by these dovetail ribs. TYPE PDI<p> <p> The tooling required to form the steel into this profile is more complex than that required to form Type B decking. EPICORE is more expensive to produce.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6205C146C29519CC88256E0B005D8100/$file/0156695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Forsythe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/961113P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The following facts are generally undisputed. Louis NECA is a multiemployer association which negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of electrical contractors. Defendants are small owner operated electrical companies with few or no employees. While the letters of assent were in effect. The CIR is a joint industry and union arbitration panel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seacoast claims that DaimlerChrysler's decision to authorize a new competing dealer near Salisbury was an arbitrary and unfair trade practice under Mass. Arguing that its chapter 93B claim sounded in antitrust and was thus not arbitrable under the so called <U>American Safety</U> doctrine. <U>See</U> <U>Am. Held that it lacked jurisdiction over Seacoast's appeal because the arbitrability decision was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1926.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Malaguti was on brief. Daubard were on brief. Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. were on brief. P.C. were on brief. Is forbidding. Sheer bulk rarely is an accurate proxy for complexity. The facts that inform MSL's wide ranging allegations are too diffuse to shed much light at this juncture. The school's self proclaimed mission is to provide high quality. Affordable legal education to capable persons who traditionally have been shut out of the legal profession. MSL is not a fully accredited law school. The ABA is the largest national organization of the legal profession. Though the ABA does not have the power to discipline lawyers. The AALS is a non profit association of 160 law schools. Its stated objective is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200503/03-7174a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Carol B. Some of which were attended by an observer from WMATA's Office of Civil Rights. Thomas how each time Gary Lewis selected the panel I was . . . denied the promotion because Mr. Were discriminatory against Latino people. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1318.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.L.P.</U> were on brief for plaintiff. L.L.P.</U> were on brief for defendant. He was a partner with his brother in the firm of Ellis &. The present case arises from Ellis's representation of one person who was employed at two different jobs under two different names: Denis Milan and David Formoso. We will refer to Denis Milan only when discussing his claim for the first accident at the Victory Button Company. Because it appears uncontradicted that David Formoso is the correct name of this individual. We will use that name in all other instances.</P> <P> The first accident occurred on March 25. Claimed to have injured his back during a fall. Doctors examining Formoso determined that this injury was also at the L5 S1 location in his lower back. This claim was referred to St. Ellis represented Formoso in both claims.</P> <P> Although Formoso was claiming a causal relationship between his back injury and the fall at the Westford Regency Hotel. The prior accident at the Victory Button Company with its injury to the same part of the back was never disclosed to St. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1416.html">VIRGINIA V. MAC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-12225.man.html">CUNNINGHAM V. FLEETWOOD HOMES OF GEORGIA (6/6/2001, NO. 00-12225)<BR></A><BR> Concluding that Fleetwood was a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement but that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act precludes arbitration of the Cunninghams' written or express warranty claims. We assume for the purpose of deciding this case that Fleetwood is entitled to the benefit of the arbitration agreement.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/024346p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> STAHR NANCY FLICKINGER This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting judgment for the plaintiff United States and against defendant Allegheny Ludlum Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1206.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenging the court's instructions (1) that the jury could not award damages to Klesch under the last of several successive written agreements signed (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. (3) that Liberty Media would be liable for damages only if it was a but for cause of those damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. This possibility appears to have sparked Liberty's interest in the deal. The letter stated that there was still no definitive agreement between the parties. The acquisition was still premised on the condition that all its aspects </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042539p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In connection with a complaint filed by Tran alleging that he was misled by MetLife's agent as to the number of years he was obligated to pay premiums on a life 2 insurance policy he purchased. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Tran was born in Vietnam and came to the United States in 1979. The communications between Lam and Tran took place in Chinese.2 Lam eventually sold Tran what is commonly known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1172.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Tuck's dealt and serviced GMC and Navistar vehicles.</P> <P> The Navistar franchise that Boyle hoped to acquire was not in great shape. The dealership contracts were not assignable. Was the prize Boyle had to win. To remind him that the dealership was not assignable and to specify what Boyle should submit as an application. To explain that Boyle would have to waive the condition on the P&. There was no agreement between Boyle and Navistar. Told Boyle that he liked Boyle's leasing background and that he was sure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov96/95-2848.man.html">EPIC METALS CORP. V. SOULIERE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Epic Metals Corp. v. Asserting that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Was commonly used by the construction industry.<p> In 1968 Epic developed EPICORE as an alternative to Type B deck. EPICORE is not patented. Is twenty four and one half inches wide. EPICORE's roll formed sheets are characterized by these dovetail ribs. TYPE PDI<p> <p> The tooling required to form the steel into this profile is more complex than that required to form Type B decking. EPICORE is more expensive to produce.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1504.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Joseph Diamante. That infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is barred by prosecution history estoppel. Since we hold that a reasonable jury could have concluded that PODS did not own the asserted copyright. BACKGROUND I PODS and Porta Stor are both storage and moving companies that operate by delivering storage containers to customers. PODS is the assignee of United States Patent No. 6. Claim 1 also requires that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1351.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three cases are consolidated for purposes of this appeal. King now appeals the district court's: (1) determination that the noncompete provisions were enforceable. I PA is a professional consulting firm with offices in 20 countries and over 3400 employees. Although it is a New Jersey corporation with a human resources office in that state. PA is headquartered in Washington. King was a Senior Vice President ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063977np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007) OPINION PER CURIAM This is an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of Keith Dixon's amended complaint against the Defendants. We will affirm. The District Court primarily determined that Dixon failed to state a claim because the promissory note stated that the proceeds of the note </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0081p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If the court is correct that there is an implied private right of action. I believe there is no private right of action. Although the law under which the earlier contracts had been made was changed thereby as to future contracts. Had advised the Village of Roseville in 1957 that its attempt to impose a franchise fee on Ameritech was invalid given the latter's existing state franchise. V For the foregoing reasons the judgments of the district court in each case are AFFIRMED. OPINION 3 require its own consent to the establishment of a telephone system within the city: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-5215.htm">99-5215 -- BISHOP V. EQUINOX INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 07/20/2001<BR></A><BR> In which we remanded to the district court to determine whether the Estate was entitled to a portion of Equinox's profits during the infringing period. Because we find that the district court was acting within its discretionary authority on both issues. Bishop became aware that Equinox was marketing a product using the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0309p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His estate was worth approximately $10 million. Roughly $1.9 million in federal estate taxes was due as a result of Karam's death. Who are Karam's wife and children. The plaintiffs argue that Sagemark was untimely in seeking judgment as a matter of law and. Factual background Karam's trust agreement contained what is known as a tax equalization clause. The theoretical advantage of an equalization clause is that. Two smaller distributions on the deaths of each spouse will result in less total estate tax liability than would one large distribution on the death of the survivor. Are relatively uncommon in estate planning. More prevalent is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ5MzItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4932-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cablevision had violated the uniform rate requirement of 47 U.S.C. § 543(d) 2 1 Broder's Notice of Appeal also describes various interlocutory orders that are merged into the final judgment. 2 Codifying Section 623(d) of the Communications Act of 1934. We conclude that both removal and dismissal were proper. At the time the complaint in this case was filed. The Basic Cable rate was $10.50 per month and the Family Cable rate was amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This rate was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972236.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2236 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is a Texas cabinet manufacturer who contracted to purchase maple veneer plywood from Appellee. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court determined that the parties' choice of law agreement was controlling and. Both of which contained the following language on the front side of the form: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/991445.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three provisions of the Agreement are especially relevant to this case: Closing/Best Efforts Clause Section 3.1 provided that a closing was to occur </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1046p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues we address are whether the companies in the Bethlehem Steel corporate family and their agents were legally capable of engaging in an antitrust conspiracy with each other. We hold that the defendants were legally incapable of conspiring with one another or with their agents. We conclude that the defendants are not liable for breach of contract. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Joruss Trucking were owned by Russell Siegel and his wife. Were based in Sparrows Point. It hoped to capture at least a portion of the revenue it was paying to outside truckers. Section 11343(e) authorizes the Commission to exempt an acquisition from regulatory oversight if it finds that regulation is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of the Act. [fn3] and the acquisition is limited in scope or unlikely to result in an abuse of market power. 49 U.S.C. § 11343(e). Once the acquisition was finalized. Non exclusive agents in different parts of the country to make arrangements with owner operators or with other carriers who had access to trucks and drivers to carry the freight it was under contract to transport. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/051201P.pdf">P:\DOCS\E-DOS\1-25\05-1201 DCS SANITATION V. ELOY CASTILLO.WPD<BR></A><BR> (2) were responsible for enforcing regulatory safety requirements and satisfying third party audit requirements. (3) were familiar with staffing requirements for cleaning the Tyson plant. I will not directly or indirectly engage in. Or corporation in competition with [DCS] or engaged in providing contract cleaning services within a radius of one hundred (100) miles of any customer of [DCS] or with any customer or client of [DCS] or any entity or enterprise having business dealings with [DCS] which is then providing its own cleaning services in house or which requests my assistance or knowledge of contract cleaning services to provide its own cleaning services in house. Is entitled to an injunction to 2 be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining and restraining employee from committing any violation of this provision and employee hereby consents to the issuance of the injunction. The district court thus applied Nebraska law to determine the validity of the noncompete agreements and concluded the noncompete agreements were overbroad and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DB030E8186C4EA388256E1A0082DB5E/$file/0056648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A seed company might pay to have its advertisement displayed when searchers enter terms related to gardening. NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS have its advertisements appear on the page listing the search results for gardening related terms: the ad would be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B0C93358B88F28D88256FD90056994B/$file/0455962.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendant Michael Kremer was dissatisfied with the hair restoration services provided to him by the Bosley Medical BOSLEY MEDICAL INSTITUTE v. Was uncomplimentary of the Bosley Medical Institute. The problem is that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1313.html">SEIKO EPSON CORP. V. NU-KOTE INTERNATIONAL INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Brian M. With him on the brief was <U>Ronald S. Of counsel were <U>Robert D. While the appeal of the preliminary injunction was pending Epson amended its complaint to add counts of infringement of three additional patents. 472 (together </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1968.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Samson PC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3146B9B8189E95F588256BA4007707DE/$file/0056450.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: footnote 9 on slip opinion page 3757 is deleted. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. 6102 COMMUNITY DENTAL SERVICES v. Both parties orally agreed to an extension of time for the filing of an answer to We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Tani was promoting his dental practice as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9561C1544C2C4B488825725D0081D52F/$file/0455373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are called upon to consider. We have juris 132 HORPHAG RESEARCH v. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case are largely the same as those upon which we based our previous opinion. Horphag was granted the United States trademark for the mark Pycnogenol.2 Since then. Pycnogenol is now one of the fifteen most sold herbal supplements in the United States. The names of the individual companies are irrelevant for our purposes. GARCIA 133 Garcia was once a licensed dealer for Horphag and sold Horphag's products through his Internet site </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5136.html">SOUTHFORK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B8C2AF74DD0CA0388256E5A00707B04/$file/9956739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1681p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that Integrated lacked standing to pursue the state law claims because its purchase of the claims from a trustee in bankruptcy was void ab initio under New Jersey law. We disagree and will affirm. 2 I. The debt was secured by separate security agreements in assets such as accounts. Certain individual defendants who were former Machine Technology employees entered Machine Technology's offices and took or copied various documents. Were unlawfully competing with Integrated. The district court denied Integrated's request for an injunction on the ground that Integrated was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D3706DE514AF63588256BBF007EB1DE/$file/0056192.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The Cavaliers created copyrighted works involving several characters who are featured in children's stories. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC97CAE36A035D388256D17008262B2/$file/0156055.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will refer to the term as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1011a.html">JSG TRADING CORP. V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> With him </p> <p>on the briefs were Gary C. With him on the </p> <p>brief were James Michael Kelly. Will assume familiarity with that opinion. This </p> <p>time around JSG challenges the sufficiency of the evidence </p> <p>and raises three questions: (1) did the Department apply the </p> <p>wrong legal standard for commercial bribery? (2) were the </p> <p>payees principals in the victim companies. Thereby precluding </p> <p>a finding of commercial bribery? and (3) is license revocation </p> <p>excessive? Any false </p> <p>or misleading statement in connection with any transaction </p> <p>involving any perishable agricultural commodity which is re </p> <p>ceived in interstate or foreign commerce by such commission </p> <p>merchant. Or the purchase </p> <p>or sale of which in such commerce is negotiated by such </p> <p>broker. Or to fail or refuse truly and correctly to account and </p> <p>make full payment promptly in respect of any transaction in </p> <p>any such commodity to the person with whom such transaction </p> <p>is had. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1290.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Savrann and Burns & Levinson were on brief for appellant. With whom Cesari and McKenna were on brief for appellee. Appellant contended that appellee's name was confusingly similar to its own. Would mislead the public into thinking that Boston Beer Works' products or services originated or were associated with those of The Boston Beer Company. Were not entitled to trademark protection. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Appellant is a beer manufacturer. The Pittsburgh facility was independently owned. Appellant's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C608B82694CF873988256A38005C82D5/$file/9956739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-1011a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Gary C. With him on the brief were James Michael Kelly. Will assume familiarity with that opinion. This time around JSG challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and raises three questions: (1) did the Department apply the wrong legal standard for commercial bribery? (2) were the payees principals in the victim companies. Thereby precluding a finding of commercial bribery? and (3) is license revocation excessive? Any false or misleading statement in connection with any transaction involving any perishable agricultural commodity which is re ceived in interstate or foreign commerce by such commission merchant. Or the purchase or sale of which in such commerce is negotiated by such broker. Or to fail or refuse truly and correctly to account and make full payment promptly in respect of any transaction in any such commodity to the person with whom such transaction is had. This duty is breached and commercial bribery results when a seller offers consideration to a buyer's agent or employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CECC4783135B2B0588256BFF0057868F/$file/0155985.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court denied Countrywide's petition on the grounds that Countrywide's arbitration agreement is unenforceable based on the doctrine of unconscionability and that Ferguson cannot be compelled to arbitrate her Title VII employment discrimination claims. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). Affirm on the ground that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. When Ferguson was hired she was required to sign Countrywide's Conditions of Employment. The arbitration agreement then outlines which claims are covered by the agreement1 and which claims are not covered.2 1 Agreement to Arbitrate. Are not limited to. Claims for discrimination or harassment on bases which include but are not limited to race. Claims resulting from the default of any obligation of the Company or the Employee under a mortgage loan which was granted and/or serviced by the Company. Or (2) is underwritten by a commercial insurer which decides claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-1274b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/03-20202-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the Utah court's judgment is entitled to res judicata effect. Because the complete factual history is set out in those opinions. P&G later filed a third amended complaint alleging that Amway's distribution method was an illegal pyramid scheme. These causes of action were based on the Satanism rumor. We found that at the time P&G I was decided. There was no res judicata effect from the Utah case. The res judicata effect of the Utah judgment is a question of law that we also review de novo. Is the `venerable legal canon' that insures the finality of judgments and thereby conserves judicial resources and protects litigants from multiple lawsuits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1201.html">TRILOGY V. TIMES FIBER<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938474.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction1 enjoining a putative infringer from infringing the compilation copyright of a publisher of a cable television factbook. System finding of that the the copyright selecting names of communities under which to list the data in its factbook was sufficiently creative and original to warrant copyright protection. All have yet to be addressed by the district court. No final judgment was entered under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the court has not yet disposed of all the claims in the case and did not make its injunction a final judgment pursuant to Fed. The order before us is an interlocutory order for an injunction that is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 2 Publishing Corp. v. Did not have the benefit of our en banc opinion in BellSouth. Ed. 2d 232 (1994). 3 this case is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/963456P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Q International Courier ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/995614.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from orders enter ed by the District Court after a trial concerning the right to use the mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1274a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1153.html">METROTRAFFIC V. SHADOW NETWORK<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053057P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a trademark infringement dispute between the owner of a registered service mark. Concluding there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Mid State's unauthorized use of MQVP's service mark was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/022894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by the Washington Post Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company. Purdy1 from appropriating Internet domain names2 that incorporate and are confusingly similar to their trademarks and servicemarks. Purdy was later found in contempt and fined for violating the injunctions. I. Both the common law and Congress have provided protection to the holders of recognized trademarks to prevent others from appropriating or copying them and taking advantage of the owner's good will for their own benefit. One legislative purpose of that act was to ensure that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013700P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 DaimlerChrysler is the registered owner of the trademarks and service marks MERCEDES and MERCEDES BENZ (collectively. MercedesBenz USA is the exclusive licensee of the Marks in the United States. One possible alphanumeric translation of which is 1 800 MERCEDES. He believes that the use of the phone number was a key component in reviving what had otherwise been a moribund dealership. Mercedes was forced The Mercedes Benz Communications Monitoring Service. MBZ is located in Owatonna and is an independent telecommunications company that specializes in the use of vanity phone numbers. Any call made to 1 800 MERCEDES originating in a contracted for area code is automatically rerouted to the appropriate dealership. Any call originating from an area code not covered by a licensing agreement terminates at the MBZ office and is processed by MBZ personnel. The following description is a concrete example of how MBZ's licensing system works. Any call made to 1 800 MERCEDES from the aforementioned area codes is automatically routed to House. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1379.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert E. With him on the brief were Kevin R. Appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee1 holding that Brooks' action for declaratory judgment that Dutailier's patent is invalid and not infringed constitutes an exceptional case and awarding attorney fees. The award is vacated. 1 Brooks Furniture Mfg. BACKGROUND Dutailier is the owner of United States Patent No. Brooks and Dutailier are both in the business of manufacturing rocking chairs. Brooks filed suit in the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe the '983 patent and that the patent was invalid. Brooks alleged that the action was exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285. Concluding that the circumstances of the case were exceptional. The 03 1379 2 district court held that Brooks had clearly prevailed on the infringement issue and was also a prevailing party to the extent that Dutailier's counterclaims had been dismissed by stipulated order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2300.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> This is a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit under the Lanham Act. The plaintiff was acquired by Morgan Tires & Auto. States that expansion into New Mexico is imminent. Summary judgment is appropriate only when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4063.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Government acts in bad faith when its claim (1) is entirely without color and (2) has been asserted wantonly. [Haroldsen] has had or should have had knowledge of the content of the sales materials and sales presentations described . . . including specifically the language cited in Counts One through Sixteen. Has known or should have known that the representations described in Counts One through Sixteen were and are false and misleading. Haroldsen is. Defendants also were required to submit financial statements that established their inability to pay consumer redress. Individual defendants Robert Brazell andDon Gull were officers. Defendant Kelly Haroldsen was an officer and director ofSSF. Defendants Annette Brazell and Dana Gull are thewives ofRobert Brazell andDon Gull. These transfers were the subject of counts XVII and XVIII of the complaint. Counsel and parties will be requested to report to the court throughout the day on any progress made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/001964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an action under the Lanham Act and state law to determine which party has the superior right to use the service mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/001409P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a licensee of certain intellectual property owned by a German corporation. The license agreement was entered into on May 14. Is in the same business as Black Clawson. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of MMK that solicits orders in the United States for products to be manufactured by MMK. Klaus Dieter Reinhardt is a director of Kroenert and MMK. Is a citizen and resident of Germany. The theft was known to Pagendarm and Black Clawson when they entered into the license agreement. The only rights withheld from Black Clawson are the rights to disclose proprietary information to third parties and to sub license to third parties without Pagendarm's consent. Pagendarm waived all claims against the German defendants to which it was or would become entitled concerning the technology at issue here. All claims against Defendants to which it is or will be entitled concerning the [technology licensed to Black Clawson] . . . and rights pertaining thereto. Concluding that Pagendarm could have asserted any claim held by Black Clawson. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991935.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. S.A. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Sandra Edelman. The Board held that the opposition is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel arising from prior district court infringement litigation. The dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the PTO for further proceedings. Mayer/Berkshire states that it and its predecessor companies have used BERKSHIRE since 1906 in their trade name and since 1925 as a trademark in association with apparel including socks. The application with the remaining Class 18 goods was passed 04 1254 2 to publication. The Board suspended the opposition proceeding in Class 18 until the district court action was concluded. Have defendants infringed plaintiff's trademark. Is there a likelihood of confusion resulting from the use by defendants of the trademark and trade name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1035.html">ADDITIVE CONTROLS V. FLOWDATA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1414.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert W. With him on the brief was Joseph R. At issue is U.S. Which is entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1617.html">GEN-PROBE INC., V. VYSIS, INC.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stephen P. California argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Ted G. Vysis and Gen Probe were involved in litigation regarding other patents.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Shortly after the 338 patent issued. Recently issued patent assets under our control which we believe Gen Probe should find of interest. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>One of the identified patents was the 338 patent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>After Gen Probe responded. </span></span></span><![endif]>The term Valid Claim shall mean an issued claim of a Collins Patent which has not been ruled invalid by a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction from which all appeals have been exhausted.</p> <p class=LicenseTerms style='mso list:l1 level2 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso fareast font family:Arial. Alleging that its tests did not infringe any claims of the 338 pa </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1572.html">NITRO LEISURE PRODUCTS, L.L.C V. ACHUSNET<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Ryan M. Patch</u> and <u>Paul Kim</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Mark G. Will and Emery. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Joseph P. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul22/03-20202-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the Utah court's judgment is entitled to res judicata effect. Because the complete factual history is set out in those opinions. P&G later filed a third amended complaint alleging that Amway's distribution method was an illegal pyramid scheme. These causes of action were based on the Satanism rumor. We found that at the time P&G I was decided. There was no res judicata effect from the Utah case. The res judicata effect of the Utah judgment is a question of law that we also review de novo. Is the `venerable legal canon' that insures the finality of judgments and thereby conserves judicial resources and protects litigants from multiple lawsuits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1200.html">AMANA V. QUADLUX<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were David A. With him on the brief was Scott A. Of counsel on the brief were Roger T. Of counsel was Margaret C. Whom Quadlux asserted was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2431.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No written agreement was reached. Some remnants of this litigation were still ongoing. Zelinski was at a bowling pro shop and discovered a Pin Breaker box that he didn't recognize. The design of the Pin Breaker logo was different. The ball in the box was a low quality Columbia second. Zelinski investigated and found out that Columbia was behind the Pin Breaker box and had proceeded full steam ahead with producing balls under the Pin Breaker name. Columbia even told Kwon not to contact Zelinski because it was in charge of the Pin Breaker line. 4 Nos. 02 2431 & 02 2574 Around the time of Zelinski's investigation. It was a big one the district court eliminated the punitive damages award. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/011632u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It found that Miller's use of the Clarion mark was likely to deceive as to the connection between Miller's hotel and Choice Hotels in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). The court also held Miller individually liable for his acts of infringement because no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1148.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel was David E. Respectively for the FIRSTCAROLINACARE mark Because the Board's findings are supported by substantial used in conjunction with healthcare insurance claims administration and health maintenance organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981028.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Defendant RAMMAX is a small German manufacturer of trench roller compaction machines used in the construction industry. SeaRoy was indebted to RAMMAX for approximately $1.8 million. Was 3 essentially a duplicate of the RAMMAX model previously distributed by Sea Roy. RAMMAX and other defendants were added by amended complaint alleging conspiracy and other causes of action. Defendants other than RAMMAX and Multiquip were previously dismissed and did not appear as parties to the appeal. The only issues to reach the jury were the defendants' issues of piercing the corporate veil. The Court must consider all the pleadings and allegations in a light most favorable to the non moving party and decide whether there is a genuine issue of material fact to be submitted to the trier of fact. This Court will review de novo the issues as to summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs concede that RAMMAX is a registered trademark and that registration establishes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1473.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NOTE: Pursuant to Fed
265 ADDITIVE CONTROLS V. FLOWDATA, INC.
265 OPINION/ORDER
Although the district court may have erred in dismissing the complaint as frivolous under 1915(d) since Sirois' claims are at least arguable. We nonetheless affirm on the basis that the error was harmless. The condition suffered as a result of the injection appears to have been relatively minor. There are no allegations of fever. Sirois was vague about the severity and duration of pain. It is acknowledged that the condition was treated after the filing of this complaint. We are persuaded that the complaint failed to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Hinckley & Keddy were on brief. McCandless and Verrill & Dana were on brief. CMM claims to have created a promotional contest called
265 VANGUARD RESEARCH, INC V. PEAT, INC.

Argued for plaintiff appellant.
265 OPINION/ORDER
Who is unaffiliated with Audi. D'Amato alleges that when he asked if displaying the logos was permissible. Skal was not affiliated with Audi in any way.1 Id. at 650. These items were posted for sale in 2003. Audi already HAS a
265 97-1290 -- KING OF THE MOUNTAIN SPORTS INC. V. CHRYSLER CORP. -- 07/08/1999

The Gothic lettering is horizontally oriented in one line and only the
265 OPINION/ORDER
Smith & Cohen were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould was on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a Massachusetts corporation which has developed and patented a line of specialized
265 OPINION/ORDER
Amouri's Grand Foods Page 2 Background Lorillard manufactures and sells cigarettes under a variety of brand names (J.A. 55).1 One of its most popular brands is
265 OPINION/ORDER
(Plantation) have infringed Resorts' service marks. It concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact pertaining to the defenses of laches and acquiescence. Is valid and that National and Plantation have infringed the mark. The area was called Tuftstown until 1895 when Tufts changed the name to Pinehurst. 928 (4th Cir. 1995). 5 A mark shall be canceled if its registration was fraudulently obtained. An applicant is required to state under oath that
265 99-6036 -- U.S. V. GILES -- 05/19/2000

We are asked to determine whether an individual who traffics in trademarks which are not attached to any goods or services violates the federal criminal trademark infringement statute. The items at issue in this case are wholesale
265 99-6036 -- U.S. V. GILES -- 05/19/2000

A revised opinion is attached.

Entered for the Court

PATRICK FISHER. We are asked to determine whether an individual who traffics in trademarks which are not attached to any goods or services violates the federal criminal trademark infringement statute. The items at issue in this case are wholesale

265 OPINION/ORDER
This is an interlocutory appeal of an injunction granted in a trademark case. They disagree as to whether the mark extends to cover three dimensional objects where two dimensions of those objects have the same general shape (but not the same exact proportions) as the drawing in the registration papers. The parties also dispute whether the mark is valid and whether it has been infringed. Plaintiff Appellee Gibson Guitar Corp. (
265 98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000

1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment.

I

Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott

265 OPINION/ORDER
MGI contends that the jury's award of $2 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages is clearly excessive and grossly disproportionate to the loss suffered by MMCS. As that loss is reflected in the evidence presented at trial. We are not persuaded by MGI's contention that the award is clearly excessive and we therefore cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for remittitur. The purpose of the software was to maintain prescription and billing records for MGI's customers. 000 for each pharmacy in which MGI was using MMCS's software. The letter further warned that if the amount sought was not received by 5:00 p.m. MMCS
265 OPINION/ORDER
Inc. was established in 1995 as a direct sales gourmet food company. Tastefully Simple's business operates through a system of
265 98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000

Circuit Judges.

265 00-1382 -- AMAXON, INC. V. DIRT CAMP, INC. -- 12/06/2001

Giove was a member from 1994 to 1998. Giove's likeness was limited to the term of the TSMI/Amazon contract. Giove was still a member of the team. Federal jurisdiction was founded on the Lanham Act claim under 28 U.S.C.
265 OPINION/ORDER
Was descriptive and that it had not acquired secondary meaning. To obtain trademark protection for the mark LAWOFFICES.1 Plaintiff is the registrant of the domain Although the specific facts of this case invo lve the designation LawOffices.net. 1999) (noting that when a trademark
265 OPINION/ORDER
Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellant. Brooks was on brief for appellees. Since the appeal is from an order granting a motion to dismiss. Is a Massachusetts corporation based in Peabody. Defendant appellees are Pioneer Health Care. The Pioneer companies are Massachusetts corporations based in West Springfield and their names are recorded with the Massachusetts state secretary under Mass. At some point it came to the attention of the Pioneer companies that PHC was using the name
265 OPINION/ORDER
265 OPINION/ORDER
The class of all consumers in the State of Maryland who have purchased frozen Phillips Maryland Style Crab Cakes or have dined at Phillips Seafood Restaurants during the past three years. The facts are straightforward and brief. Made in the USA Foundation is a nonprofit consumer organization with headquarters in Montgomery County. Products that are made in the United States. It and its members bought packages of Phillips Foods' crab cakes that were labeled
265 OPINION/ORDER
We must determine to what extent a District Court is bound by a ruling by this Court on a prior appeal that had reversed the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction. We determined that Southco had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because Southco's product numbers were mechanically dictated by its numbering system. The District Court held that it was bound by the prior panel's decision. We will reverse the judgment 3 of the District Court and remand this case to it for consideration of the Bisbing declaration. The product numbers are used not only in the ordering process but also in the manufacturing process to insure the precisely correct identification of each product and its components. Captive screws are used to fasten panels together. The screw is mounted in one panel by means of the ferrule and the other panel contains an internally threaded insert that receives the screw. 149 and fn 1 (3d Cir. 2001) (
265 OPINION/ORDER
Texas WAB appeals the district court's order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment sua sponte to Virginia W A B on the basis that Texas WAB was barred by the equitable doctrines of laches and acquiescence from enforcing in Virginia its exclusive right to use the WHATABURGER® mark. We affirm the district court's order to the extent it concludes that Texas WAB is the
265 OPINION/ORDER
These processes are called: HALT (Highly Accelerated Life Testing) and HASS (Highly Accelerated Stress Screening). Asserting against (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The district court found that they were preempted by the Copyright Act. Finding that Hobbs' suit was supported by
265 OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Sterling Acceptance Corporation appeals from the summary judgment entered against it on its federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.1 The pertinent underlying facts are adequately set forth in the district court's order. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
265 CARNIVAL BRAND SEAFOOD CO. V. CARNIVAL BRANDS (9/3/1999, NO. 98-4126)

Hi Seas executed the Hi Seas Assignment.

Defendant CBI is a New Orleans. Louisiana company that is engaged in the business of selling prepared Creole or Cajun type food products. These products are available in grocery stores for retail purchase. Summary judgment was due to be granted only if the forecast of evidence before the district court showed that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party. Was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must show (1) that its mark has priority and (2) that the defendant's mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. Lone Star Steakhouse &. Any priority that CBSC claims over CBI with respect to the CARNIVAL mark must have been derived from one of CBSC's predecessors in interest. Cf. N. 3 (1998) (explaining that an assignee of a trademark steps into the shoes of the assignor and that a company may

265 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judges *Judge Chertoff heard oral argument in this case but resigned prior to the time the opinion was filed. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether a showing of willful infringement is a prerequisite to an accounting of a trademark infringer's profits for a violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. We hold that wilfulness is an important equitable factor but not a prerequisite to such an award. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Joseph Renosky was a member of the board of directors of Banjo Buddies. Banjo Buddies' principal product during that time was an extremely successful fishing lure called the Banjo Minnow. The Banjo Minnow was principally advertised via
265 AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Aquatherm Indus. While we agree with the district court that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claims were barred. Remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Aquatherm is a manufacturer of solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is a regulated utility that sells electricity in an area of Florida containing more than 250. Aquatherm's contention that these statements have unfairly advantaged the market for pool heaters reliant on electricity.<p> Aquatherm and FPL have expended a great deal of energy on their journey to this court. The state court's decision was affirmed by a Florida appellate court in March 1994.<p> Prior to dismissal of the state action. (3) by applying only two of the four elements required for res judicata under Florida law to hold that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claim was barred. Antitrust Claims<p> <p> This case presents the question whether a federal district court may give a Florida court judgment preclusive effect in a federal action brought under antitrust laws that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore could not have been raised in the state court proceeding due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTI1MjJfc28ucGRm/05-2522_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTM2MDRfc28ucGRm/04-3604_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/93-8474.op.html">WARREN PUBL'G CO. V. MICRODOS DATA CORP.<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LS0wNzc2X3NvLnBkZg==/04--0776_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-6809.man.html">ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The issue presented in this case is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021738.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chemical crabgrass control products are most effective when applied to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-8474.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTA0MzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0435-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Distinctive mark to an injunction against the user of a mark that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1087.html">U. S. TEST, INC. V. N D E ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.<BR></A><BR> That the patents were invalid and unenforceable. <U>See</U> <U>id.</U> at ¶¶ . Test was liable for contributory infringement of the '453 patent. <U>See</U> Am. UCIC was obligated to defend U.S. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001971.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were tenants in outlet shopping malls. The tenant assigned to AFS exclusive control of all potential legal claims that the tenant might have against the landlord. The district court concluded that the contractual arrangements were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-4126.man.html">CARNIVAL BRAND SEAFOOD CO. V. CARNIVAL BRANDS (9/3/1999, NO. 98-4126)<BR></A><BR> Hi Seas executed the Hi Seas Assignment.</P> <P> Defendant CBI is a New Orleans. Louisiana company that is engaged in the business of selling prepared Creole or Cajun type food products. These products are available in grocery stores for retail purchase. Summary judgment was due to be granted only if the forecast of evidence before the district court showed that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party. Was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must show (1) that its mark has priority and (2) that the defendant's mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. <EM>Lone Star Steakhouse &. Any priority that CBSC claims over CBI with respect to the CARNIVAL mark must have been derived from one of CBSC's predecessors in interest. <EM>Cf. N. 3 (1998) (explaining that an assignee of a trademark steps into the shoes of the assignor and that a company may </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAwMjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0026-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAwMjYtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0026-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3NDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0744-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That copyright infringement was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415341.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Almeida's right of publicity claim under § 540.08 and common law is preempted by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5428a.html">STDNT LOAN MKT ASSN V. RILEY RICHARD<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-2077.opa.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aquatherm Indus. While we agree with the district court that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claims were barred. Remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Aquatherm is a manufacturer of solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is a regulated utility that sells electricity in an area of Florida containing more than 250. Aquatherm's contention that these statements have unfairly advantaged the market for pool heaters reliant on electricity.<p> Aquatherm and FPL have expended a great deal of energy on their journey to this court. The state court's decision was affirmed by a Florida appellate court in March 1994.<p> Prior to dismissal of the state action. (3) by applying only two of the four elements required for res judicata under Florida law to hold that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claim was barred. Antitrust Claims<p> <p> This case presents the question whether a federal district court may give a Florida court judgment preclusive effect in a federal action brought under antitrust laws that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore could not have been raised in the state court proceeding due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/93-8474.op.html">WARREN PUBL'G CO. V. MICRODOS DATA CORP.<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-6809.man.html">ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The issue presented in this case is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938474.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction1 enjoining a putative infringer from infringing the compilation copyright of a publisher of a cable television factbook. Finding that the copyright holder's system of selecting the names of communities under which to list the data in its factbook was sufficiently creative and original to warrant copyright protection. All have yet to be addressed by the district court. No final judgment was entered under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the court has not yet disposed of all the claims in the case and did not make its injunction a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The order before us is an interlocutory order for an injunction that is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 1 ** * Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. The focus of this case is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-8474.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1336a.html">BLOUNT WILLIAM B. V. SEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002574.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Melinda Hayes was employed by Crawford. That she was considering leaving the company to establish a competing business. 245 (N.Y. 1954) (finding breach where subordinate employees and customers were recruited prior to resignation)). Restatement (Second) of Agency § 393 cmt. e ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6458491CFD1E4B9F88256EDD00770497/$file/0315453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruling that Verizon's state law claims against Covad were barred by the filed rate doctrine governing the charges of regulated carriers. That there is no barrier to Verizon suing to enforce what it has filed. COVAD COMMUNICATIONS motions to strike Verizon's complaints but hold that summary judgment against Covad's counterclaims was improper because Covad was not given adequate notice that the sufficiency of its claims would be at issue or an opportunity to respond. FACTS The several telephone companies here denominated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1594.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dunn & Crutcher were on brief for appellants. Dunn & Crutcher were on brief for appellants. Mil limet & Branch were on brief for appellee. limet & Branch were on brief for appellee. *Of the Eleventh Circuit. Circuit Judge. tion (Ferro) is a Massachusetts corporation which has its princi pal place of business in New Hampshire. The magnetic fluid rotary seal is a state of the art gadget. Nippon Ferrofluidics Corporation (NFC) was Ferro's Japanese subsidiary. Akira Yamamura is NFC's chief executive officer. Both the nondisclosure provision and the restrictive covenant were to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/584907C164019DD288256B750003E183/$file/0056450.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3753 infringement of the trademark. The answer was filed approximately two weeks late. The magistrate judge ordered Salmonsen to serve the answer on CDS and to call CDS to discuss 2 Tani was promoting his dental practice as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ0NjUtY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-4465-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021595.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 counsel's name is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-5260.htm">98-5260 -- HUTCHINSON V. PFEIL -- 04/04/2000<BR></A><BR> Joining in his notice of appeal are Hope Cobb. Whose motion to intervene in district court was denied. Hutchinson's notice of appeal from the final judgment entered over eight months later. <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AE2D831DCDFE64388256E40007D0BF0/$file/0256278.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That it should not have remanded the case. Waddell & Reed is a federally registered investment advisor and broker that sells mutual funds. It is Ordered that the motion to dismiss be. Hereby is. It is further Ordered. Hereby is. WADDELL & REED INC. possess jurisdiction to review the district court's order. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) declares in part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1072.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kirchwey and Dechert Price & Rhoads were on brief. Zecha and Warner & Stackpole were on brief. Among the relief sought was a preliminary injunction barring Giles from assuming his new position (at least through the end of the fiscal year) or from otherwise making use of Campbell's trade secrets. He was promoted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4248.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine if Plaintiff has raised a genuine factual issue as to whether Defendant's alleged infringement was willful. Our appellate jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Counsel issued an opinion letter to Hyundai stating that the use and registration of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5266a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief was John F. Gaine was on the brief for amicus curiae Man aged Funds Association. Because the regulation of their advertising practices was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20ADFFEE69DE724C88256E1C0004F46B/$file/0216696.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the subject of a criminal investigation because the government suspects that Lion falsified documents related to USDA inspections of its raisins. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND The California raisin industry is highly competitive. At the time this action was commenced. Raisin prices were at a 15year low and the success or failure of contract bids hinged on price differentials of a fraction of a cent per pound. Lion is the largest independent handler of California raisins in the state. Lion is governed by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The marketing order requires that raisin handlers have their products inspected by USDA once when they are received from producers. Again before they are sold to the consumer. 7 C.F.R. §§ 989.58 989.59. The original of the Line Check Sheet is retained by USDA and a carbonless copy is left with the handler.1 Information from the Line Check Sheets is summarized on USDA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-14322.man.html">WOODEN V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (4/19/2001, NO. 00-14322)<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/04-7149a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\09-26-05 SITTING\04-7149 NOVAK V. CAPTL MGMT CORP\OPINION\04-7149 OPINION DRAFT 19.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jonathan E. Circuit Judge: Twelve to fifteen thugs criminally attacked and permanently injured appellants Dominic Novak and George Valdivia as they were leaving a bar and dance club in the District of Columbia. The attack occurred late at night in an alley that was immediately outside the only exit from the club and was the most common path for departing patrons. The District Court concluded there was no such duty because the club did not exercise </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981133.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Jones received a commission on all premiums received on policies sold by the agents under him and a commission on each of these policies that was renewed. The Agreement provided that if Jones was terminated. Jones was entitled to the renewal commissions for the remainder of his life 2 or 20 years. Whichever was longer. Colonial Life terminated Jones on the grounds that his job performance was inadequate. He contended that his sudden difficulty in recruiting and motivating insurance agents was due to two actions taken by Colonial Life. Contending that the jury's verdict finding a breach of contract was not supported by the evidence. *We dismissed an initial appeal by Jones because the district court had not yet entered a final order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5111.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1359.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> So one was assigned at random Qwest Communications. (We use the past tense because the tariff was canceled on July 31. The tariff was in force when the parties' dispute arose and thus governs its resolution.). Metro East contends that it uses Centrex service so that the monthly fee was 45¢ per line. Qwest believes that Metro East is not a Centrex user and that the tariff therefore specified a monthly charge of $4.25. The total in contention is about $80. The simplified procedures of arbitration are especially attractive for small stakes disputes. Metro East believes that the controversy is so small that neither arbitration nor ordinary litigation makes sense. Yet a tariff is a set of terms created and filed unilaterally by a carrier. Though they are binding unless the federal agency with which they have No. 02 1359 3 been filed disapproves them. The order denying Qwest's motion to compel arbitration is immediately appealable under 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1)(B). Yet it is almost never right to read legal language as self defeating. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-9337.opn.html">KOCH V. RUGG (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2667.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that AT&T overcharged its customers for contributions to the federal * This opinion was originally released in typescript. 2 No. 02 2667 Universal Services Fund. Boomer argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable under Illinois law and he sought a declaratory judgment accordingly. Arguing that Boomer's state law challenge to the terms and conditions of the CSA is preempted by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Boomer is therefore bound by the CSA's arbitration clause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/999D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The year was 1994. Domain names were free for the asking. Was doing time for impersonating a bankruptcy lawyer. That was only a minor impediment for a man of Cohen's boundless resource and bounded integrity. Why was this unusual letter being sent via Cohen rather than to Network Solutions directly? It explained: Because we do not have a direct connection to the internet. We have no objections to your use of the domain name sex.com and this letter shall serve as our authorization to the internet registration to transfer sex.com to your corporation.2 Despite the letter's transparent claim that a company called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/97-6963.man.html">ELLIS V. GEN. MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. (11/13/1998, NO. 97-6963)<BR></A><BR> GMAC was exempted from liability under TILA. On appeal the Ellises argue that the statute of limitations was suspended by the doctrine of equitable tolling and that. We find that TILA is subject to equitable tolling but that GMAC. Is not liable for the TILA violations alleged.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Ellises' claim derives from their purchase of a 1993 Saturn SL 2 from Royal Oldsmobile ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2667T.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that after the Federal Communications Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-5144.man.html">LIPCON V. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON (8/5/1998, NO. 97-5144)<BR></A><BR> We are confronted with the important question of whether the anti waiver provisions of the United States securities laws preclude enforcement of certain choice of law and forum selection clauses ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1168p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul's obligation to defend is also based on the comprehensive general liability coverage it purchased from St. I. Facts and Procedural History VNA is a non profit corporation engaged in the business of providing home health care and related services throughout the Delaware Valley. Agencies such as VNA typically provide home health care to patients who are discharged from hospitals and require follow up care. Which are required as a condition of participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to transfer or refer their patients to appropriate facilities. In February 1993 VNA was sued by AHS. Paul was required to defend VNA in the lawsuit brought by AHS and a judgment for all monies expended by VNA and all liabilities incurred but not yet paid by VNA with respect to the defense of the AHS suit. The district court held that VNA is not entitled to coverage under the commercial general liability portion of the policy. After the notices of appeal were filed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. Our review of the district court's grant and denial of the summary judgment motions is plenary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2472.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court determined that Yankee's evidentiary support for its federal copyright and trade dress claims was irrelevant with respect to the state claim for tortious interference. The court also concluded that the alleged actionable behavior was not committed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/003939P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> School districts are listed alphabetically in a column at the left hand side of the table. Topic headings are listed in a row across the top of the table. There are many topics in the Schoolhouse table. The substantive content of the table is information listed under these topics. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992186.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This is a companion case to City of Charleston. The two cases are decided concurrently. To which short lines and baited hooks are attached at intervals. It is highly regulated and federally permitted and is the dominant form of commercial fishing used by United States fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean to harvest highly migratory species such as swordfish and shark. 1 A FISHERMAN'S BEST v. Longlining is bitterly opposed by recreational and sportsfishermen and some environmental groups. Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is a national non profit organization whose stated purpose is rebuilding and preserving fisheries in the United States. It is aligned in principle to sports and recreational fishing and generally opposed to commercial fishing. The CHP group is composed of persons who wanted their group selected as operator of the Maritime Center. Their response to the request for proposals was rejected as untimely. There is evidence that they requested RFA to ask the mayor to accept their proposal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033410P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) finding that Gateway's trademark registration was not limited to cow spots in the shape of a box. United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 1 Gateway's mark was entitled to protection under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. I. Background Gateway is a corporation. Stretch Pets have an animal's head and an elastic body that can wrap around the edges of computer monitors. Each Stretch Pet has a tag hanging from its ear and a tag sewn into its seam that contains the trademark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2278.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief for appellants. Curran with whom Edward Notis McConarty and Hemenway & Barnes were on brief for appellee. Petrone was the president and majority shareholder of co defendant International Executive Sales ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/042958P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that Pennfield had violated the Lanham Act and state law by falsely advertising that one of its antibiotic animal feed additives was approved for certain 1 uses by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Alpharma and Pennfield are the only manufacturers of bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD). This interim approval was codified in 21 C.F.R. § 558.15(g)(1). Some of which were approved. Was however never amended to distinguish The Honorable Joseph F. The result was an apparent expansion in the number of uses for which the product of Pennfield's predecessor had been approved for marketing. While the Maryland suit was pending. After these notices were published. The Maryland suit was then dismissed with prejudice. 3 On September 30. That Alpharma's action was an impermissible private attempt to enforce FDCA and FDA regulations. That the Lanham Act was not intended as a means of indirectly enforcing the FDCA and FDA regulations. The court cited a number of factors in concluding that dismissal was proper: the absence of a decision by the FDA clarifying the meaning of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that this suit under ERISA was barred under New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine because Fornarotto's previously filed tort action was sufficiently related to the instant action to trigger application of that doctrine. For the reasons that follow we will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Fornarotto was employed by the New Jersey American Water Company (a subsidiary of American Waterworks Company. Fornarotto was eligible to participate in the company's pension plan which provided different levels of benefits to eligible employees. The employee becomes disabled and is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE4D2E5B42A85E5D88256BB8007E2C84/$file/0056913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question of whether tax deferred variable annuities are covered securities under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10660.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Holding that appellants are not entitled to a defense or indemnity under the umbrella liability policies issued to them by plaintiffcounter defendant appellee RLI Insurance Company (RLI). MSI and Brekke were listed as additional insureds on the supplementary schedules of each policy. Where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/054345P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Post trial motions were denied. Which is headquartered and incorporated in Florida. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 Rawlings and Matrix executed the contract which is the subject of this litigation. The license was to continue so long as certain conditions were satisfied. The other party was entitled to terminate the contract if the breaching party did not cure the breach within thirty days after the written notice. The contract was to be governed by the law of Delaware. There was testimony at trial that annual sales of Rawlings bags were about $300. In the next several years they declined and were at about $865. For some time Rawlings had been concerned with the decline in its bag sales and believed that Matrix was uninterested in growing this business and was not using its best efforts to foster and develop its products. Rawlings management expressed concern that the bag line was stagnant. Rawlings was dissatisfied with Orloff's response to these concerns. During that same month K2's consolidation plans were carried out. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1824.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellants and Peter W. Was on brief for appellee. Background Background Plaintiffs are non utility power producers known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/98-9337.opn.html">NADINE S. KOCH, DR. V. EDWIN A. RUGG, DR. (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/321B5F2092B7CA7488257309004950EF/$file/0656390opinion.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse because the district court abused its discretion when it determined that Hansen is likely to succeed on the merits. The court stated that a preliminary injunction was warranted because Hansen had shown a probability of success on the merits. DISCUSSION [1] The central issue in this appeal is whether the grant of a preliminary injunction constitutes an abuse of discretion because Hansen failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits. In an Hansen later added a count for trademark infringement that is not pertinent to this appeal. 2 HANSEN BEVERAGE v. Probable success on the merits is established by a showing that the movant's trade dress is protectable (nonfunctional and distinctive). Is whether the district court erred in finding that Freek's trade dress creates a likelihood of confusion.5 [2] National contends that the district court erred in finding a likelihood of confusion because it improperly refused to give preclusive effect to findings by the District Court for the District of Nevada in Hansen Beverage Co. v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1182.html">POLYMER TECH. V. BRIDWELL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/02-1199a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Floyd L. Was on the brief for Alabama Public Service Commission in support of petitioner and reversal of orders. Stern was on the brief of amicus curiae Florida Public Service Commission in support of petitioner and urging reversal. With her on the brief was David E. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Georgia Public Service Commission in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief was Neil L. The Commission found that because the connection facilities in each case were located </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1024.html">DSC COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION V. PULSE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were John M. Of counsel on the brief were Thomas M. With him on the brief were Joseph B. Of counsel on the brief were Jonathan T. Of counsel were William F. A DLC is placed in a location central to a number of subscribers. Copper lines are run over the relatively short distances from the DLC to the subscribers. <p> The DLC acts as an analog to digital converter and as a signal modulator demodulator. The electrical signals that travel over the copper lines between the DLC and the subscribers are voice frequency analog signals. The signals that travel between the DLC and the central telephone office are digital signals that travel over a high bandwidth (e.g. The DLC converts the various analog signals it receives from individual subscribers to a digital format and modulates those digital signals into a high bandwidth composite signal that is sent to the central office through the digital channel. The DLC performs the reverse process on signals traveling from the central office to individual subscribers.<p> The devices at the heart of the dispute in this case are the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2034p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We determine that the defendant airline's form letter advising a number of passengers that their tickets are considered to be stolen may be defamatory to the plaintiff travel agency that sold the tickets. We will reverse the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation claims. Inc. was a travel agency in Princeton. Some of these tickets were purchased from an authorized agent for Delta Airlines by Taj Mahal which. On a number of occasions in 1996 when these tickets were presented at the airport in India for the return flight to the United States. The travelers were required to purchase new tickets and were given the following explanatory form letter: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/679D33FA3FF9F01588257321006FB13E/$file/0535477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Golden Pisces and OneBeacon are not entitled to attorneys' fees absent statutory authorization. Because the parties' contract was void. Which at the time this action arose was based in Newport. It was never signed by the ship's manager. Nor was it signed by a representative of Fred Wahl. It was towed back to Dutch Harbor and missed the remainder of the fishing season. Fred Wahl raised the affirmative defenses that Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent. The parties stipulated to several facts but disputed whether Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent and whether the terms of the form contract controlled. It further found </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014322.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014322.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1422.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1693.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mahoney and Miller were on brief for appellees. All Trawl is a Massachusetts commercial fishing corporation which owns the Corey Pride and Anderson is All Trawl's president. James Corey is identified in Southworth's complaint as either an agent or principal of All Trawl. Shortly after the engine was installed on the vessel by a Southworth employee. A fire broke out on the Corey Pride while it was out at sea on a fishing expedition. Claiming that the fire was caused by defective engine parts and faulty installation. An additional claim for negligence was later asserted at trial. Southworth's claims against Anderson and James Corey were dismissed without objection prior to trial. James Corey was out of the case altogether and Anderson continued only as a counterclaimant. The remaining claims were tried in December 1990 before a magistrate judge by consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. 636(c). The magistrate judge found that the fire was caused by a defective makeshift oil pressure line connected to the engine and installed by Southworth's agent. </TD>