Jewel Companies, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the Westhall Company, D/B/a Jewel Mart, Defendant-Appellee., 575 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1978)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (May 15, 1978)

Docket number: 76-1764

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/jewel-companies-westhall-mart-36884842
Id. vLex: VLEX-36884842

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Hindu Incense, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Charles Meadows and Dorothy Meadows, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 692 F.2d 1048 (6th Cir. 1982)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Ameritech, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Information Technologies Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, D/B/a Ameritech, Defendant-Appellee., 811 F.2d 960 (6th Cir. 1987)

See all citations to this document

Text:

James M. Porter, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, Robert M. Newbury, Pattishall, McAuliffe & Hofstetter, David C. Hilliard, Floyd A. Mandell, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Marvin L. Karp, Ronald Isroff, Ulmer, Berne, Laronge, Glickman & Curtis, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellee Jewel Companies, Inc., filed this action for injunctive and compensatory relief against The Westhall Company, d/b/a Jewel Mart, alleging that defendant's use of the word "Jewel" in its Jewel Mart stores unfairly infringed upon appellant's "Jewel Home Shopping Service." District Judge Thomas D. Lambros entered judgment in favor of the defendant. Reference is made to the comprehensive opinion of the district court for a recitation of pertinent facts. Jewel Companies, Inc. v. The Westhall Co., 413 F.Supp. 994 (N.D.Ohio 1976).

Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments, and the entire record, the court concludes that the findings of fact of the district court are not clearly erroneous, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and that no reversible error is disclosed by the record.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.