Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Jewel Companies, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. the Westhall Company, D/b/a Jewel Mart, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 575 F.2d 1176
Argued April 3, 1978.Decided May 15, 1978
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.